Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

GREENOCK PORT AND HARBOURS ORDER CONTIRMATION BILL.

SCHEDULE.

GREENOCK PORT AND HARBOURS.

Provisional Order to repeal the existing rates and charges authorised to be. levied at the port and harbours of Greenock and to authorise the Trustees of the said port and harbours to levy new and additional rates and charges in lieu thereof and for other purposes.

Preamble.

Whereas by the Greenock Port and Harbours Consolidation Act, 1913 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1913"), the Acts relating to the port and harbours of Greenock were consolidated with amendments and the said port and harbours were vested in the Trustees of the port and harbours of Greenock (hereinafter called "the Trustees"):

And whereas it is expedient that the Order of 1919 should be repealed:

Amendment made: After the word "repealed" ["should be repealed"] insert the words
as hereinafter in this Order provided."—[Mr. Taylor.]

CLAUSE 5.—(Repeal of Order of 1919.)

From and after the commencement of this Order the Greenock Port and Harbours Order, 1919, shall be and is hereby repealed.

Amendment made: Leave out the words "commencement of this Order," and insert instead thereof the words
fifteenth clay of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-four."—[Mr. Taylor.]

CLAUSE 6.—(Alteration of rates.)

From and after the commencement of this Order the Schedules E F G and H annexed to the Act of 1913 shall be and are hereby-repealed and the Schedules E F G and H annexed to this Order are hereby substituted in lieu and place thereof respectively and the Trustees may subject to the provi-
sions of the Act of 1913 and this Order levy demand and recover the rates and charges in the said last-mentioned Schedules of this Order from the persons liable in payment of the same and all the provisions of the Act of 1913 relating to the Schedules E F G and H annexed to the Act of 1913 and to the rates and charges specified in such Schedules respectively including the provisions for the security on such rates and charges for borrowed money shall be read and have effect as if the Schedules E F G and H annexed to this Order had formed part of the Act of 1913 and had been respectively the Schedules designated by such letters in that Act.

Amendment made: Leave out the words "commencement of this Order," and insert instead thereof the words
fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-four."—[Mr. Taylor.]

CLAUSE 7.—(Recovery of rates due before repeal.)

All rates and charges which at the commencement of this Order may be due or payable to the Trustees under any of the Schedules hereby repealed may be levied, collected, sued for, and recovered by the Trustees in the same manner as if this Order had not been confirmed.

Amendment made: Leave out the words "commencement of this Order," and insert instead thereof the words
fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-four"—[Mr. Taylor.]

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Doncaster Corporation Bill [Lords,]

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [Lords,]

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

BARRACKS.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will issue orders to stop work on the construction of the new barracks now being built for the accommodation of the Royal Air Force in the Isle of Grain, in view of the fact that there are empty naval barracks within easy reach?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): No new barracks are being constructed for the Royal Air Force in the Isle of Grain. The Royal Air Force personnel at present stationed there are accommodated for the most part in temporary wood and corrugated iron buildings erected during the War. These are supplemented by a few cottages which at one time were occupied by coast-guards. I know of no naval barracks in the near neighbourhood except at Sheerness, which is situated on the other side of the Med-way to Grain. The river at this point is more than a mile wide and it would, therefore, not be economical to accommodate Royal Air Force personnel on that side of the river.

TOKPEBOES.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the Air Force maintain their own torpedo factory at Portsmouth for the manufacture and production of their own torpedoes: and if so, whether this work could be done more economically at the naval torpedo factory?

Captain GUEST: It is not a fact that, as has appeared in the Press, the Air Force maintain a separate torpedo factory. The Royal Air Force use naval torpedoes designed and manufactured under Admiralty supervision. There' are workshops at the aerodrome from which the torpedo ship-planes are operated, but these shops are concerned only with the maintenance and adjustment of the torpedoes in use.

Mr. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether he consulted the Admiralty as to whether this testing work, of which he has told us, could not be better on the "Vernon" where the Admiralty work?

Captain GUEST: No, Sir. I think my right hon. Friend misapprehends a little as to the functions of the Royal Air Force in connection with torpedo work and the naval side of the work. This work must be done at the aerodrome, because the planes operate from the aerodrome.

Captain Viscount CURZON: Is there not at Gosport a Royal Air Force establishment for testing torpedoes, and is
there not attached to it an officer of the Royal Navy, of lieutenant's rank, and a flying officer also attached to it?

Captain GUEST: There are so many points involved in that supplementary question that it would perhaps be more satisfactory if my hon. and gallant Friend would put it on the Paper.

AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will state what provision has been made in the Air Estimates for pure aeronautical research; and what percentage of the total Estimates is devoted to this Department?

Captain GUEST: The total provision made in the Air Estimates for carrying out research work is £1,147,000. This figure represents the sum which is devoted to all forms of experimental and research work carried out under the direction of the Air Ministry, and into this work enters a very substantial element of pure research, the cost of which it is not possible to extricate from the remainder of the Vote. It also includes a sum of £47,000, which is specifically confined to pure research work carried out at the National Physical Laboratory, at the Air Ministry Laboratory, and by the Aeronautical Research Committee, the Ordnance Committee and Research Department at Woolwich, and other joint establishments, and also by special consultants.

SUDAN (ARREST).

Mr. SWAN: 13.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state if there have been any arrests for political reasons in the Sudan lately of officers or civilians, and, if so, how many, and on what charges?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): As far as I am aware, the only person lately arrested in the Sudan for reasons which might be described as political is Lieutenant AH Abdel Latif, who was tried in the circumstances which I described in my reply to the hon. Member on 6th July.

Mr. SWAN: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are five lieutenants—three in the Fourteenth Regiment and one lieutenant of the 10th Sudanese Regiment—who to-day are having their cases inquired into by the authorities for supposed political offences?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes. I am aware of that.

Mr. SWAN: Are these men being tried for military or political offences?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: As I understand it, they are under detention for offences against military authority.

Mr. SWAN: Will my hon. Friend make inquiry and see whether there is any validity in my statement?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have given an answer to the hon. Member, and I do not know that there is any necessity for further inquiry.

EGYPT (MARTIAL LAW).

Mr. SWAN: 14.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is His Majesty's Government or the Egyptian Government which is responsible for the continuance of martial law in Egypt?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The declaration of His Majesty's Government to Egypt of 21st February, 1922, which has been laid before this House, clearly defines the circumstances which govern the continuance of martial law in Egypt.

Mr. SWAN: Is it the people who are in Egypt who are responsible for the continuance of martial law, or who is it? Cannot we have inquiry made as to who is responsible?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down the further question

Mr. SWAN: May I ask the reason, seeing we are still ambiguous as to who is responsible—

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman had better put a question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

INSTRUCTIONS.

Mr. C. WHITE: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction and uncertainty existing amongst pensioners; and whether, so as to place Members of Parliament in a position to explain the real situation to pensioners, he will give instructions that each Member shall be supplied, on application, with all warrants, copies of all regulations, instructions to pension committees, medical boards, investigation officers and assessors, and all others having authority to deal with pensions and allowances, including the pensions handbook, investigation officer's instructions, instructions to medical boards and assessors, and also a copy of any instructions sent to anybody in authority dealing with pensions by which they are bound to secrecy under the Official Secrets Act?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I beg to refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to him on the 12th July. In view of the Official Secrets Act, and the normal practice of all Government Departments, my right hon. Friend is not prepared to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion. It has been erroneously stated that we are issuing secret instructions militating against the interests of the pensioner. I would remind him that, after a most searching inquiry, the Departmental Committee, comprising Members of this House, representatives of the ex-service organisations, and members of local war pensions' committees, placed on record their unanimous finding that no instructions, secret or otherwise, had been given or issued by the Ministry which would have the effect of inducing medical boards to depart from the established and well-known standard of assessment.

Mr. WHITE: Are no instructions whatever sent out to any authorities under the Official Secrets Act at the present time?

Major TRYON: It is perfectly obvious that there are instructions—and I should have thought my hon. Friend would have understood it—instructions issued in regard to the cases of pensioners, which cannot be published broadcast.

Mr. WHITE: May I further ask whether the provisions of Royal Warrants are not being continually altered without any change in the Regulations?

Major TRYON: The Royal Warrant stands as it is; any change that is made is made in public.

Mr. WHITE: Does my hon. and gallant Friend say that no alterations have taken place outside the Regulations within the past fortnight without the Regulations being altered at all?

Major TRYON: My hon. Friend is getting on to a different point. If the Royal Warrants are altered the matter is published so that anyone can see it.

EDUCATION CHANTS.

Mr. MALONE: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that grants made by the Special Grants Committee for the education of the children of men who lost their lives during the War are being terminated on the ground that on a strict interpretation of the Regulations such grants are now considered to be outside the scope of the Ministry; whether this policy is the result of a representation from the Board of Education that there is a great shortage of secondary school accommodation; and whether some arrangement can be reached between the Ministry and the Board of Education to prevent an injustice being done to these children?

Major TRYON: Grants have, in some cases, been withdrawn because they were found to be outside the terms of the Regulations. The withdrawals were not the result of representations from the Board of Education, and the last part of the question does not therefore arise.

Mr. MA LONE: Have Regulations ever been laid down dealing with cases where grants have been withdrawn?

Major TRYON: I do not quite understand the point of my hon. Friend. New educational grants are still being made, and some existing grants which have been found to be outside the terms of the Regulations have been withdrawn.

Mr. MALONE: Does what my hon. and gallant Friend say mean that some people are without a pension at all?

Major TRYON: No. That is obviously not the case in this country, as the hon. Member knows well.

Mr. HOGGE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House what he means by being outside the terms of the Regulations? To what Regulations does he refer?

Major TRYON: The Regulations governing the issue of these grants.

MENTAL CASES.

Captain LOSEBY: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions the lowest sum paid to any institution in respect of an officer confined in a lunatic asylum?

Major TRYON: The lowest rate paid for the maintenance of an officer whose admission to an asylum has been arranged by the Ministry is £2 2s. a week. There are, in addition, seven officers in county and borough asylums at rates ranging from 28s. 10d. to 37s. a week. None of these cases has been placed in the asylum by arrangement with the Ministry, but they have been allowed to remain there, either because the patient's relatives do not wish him removed to another and more distant institution, or because' he is too ill to be removed without danger to himself.

Captain LOSEBY: 4.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he will state the average sum now paid to county and borough lunatic asylums in respect of ox-soldiers who owe their condition entirely to war service; and what steps are taken to ensure that they receive treatment commensurate with sums paid on their behalf?

Major TRYON: The average cost of maintenance of a service patient in asylums in England and Wales is about 36s. a week. The Ministry have whole-time medical inspectors, who visit the asylums in the interests of the service patients and report upon the conditions of treatment. These inspectors have reported on each individual service patient, and they are at present engaged on a second review.

Captain LOSEBY: May I ask my hon. and gallant Friend if any of the inspectors have yet reported that some of these institutions are places of positive horror, and that in some cases a man would not
receive fair play or anything approaching fair play?

Major TRYON: I have seen no reports of that kind. None, whatever! If my hon. and gallant Friend has any such reports, I shall be glad to have my attention called to them.

Captain LOSEBY: I only wanted to know whether my hon. and gallant Friend has yet realised the situation]

Major TRYON: No, Sir, I have not, because reports have not come in to that effect

NURSING SISTERS.

Mr. KENNEDY: 6.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction amongst nursing sisters, who have been invalided owing to their. war service, with the treatment they are receiving from his Department; that some who are afflicted with incurable diseases have been refused treatment unless they submit to two monthly examinations by Ministry of Pension medical officers, in spite of the fact that they have sent in medical certificates from eminent specialists to say that, in their opinion, these examinations are unnecessary and harmful; that many of these nursing sisters refuse treatment rather than submit to these examinations; and that, owing to the fact that during the War their salary was in many cases only £40 and £50 per annum, they cannot afford to pay for treatment themselves; and whether he will have this matter investigated?

Major TRYON: The information in the possession of my right hon. Friend does not at all support the suggestions made by the hon. Member. Examinations, in connection with medical treatment, are not made oftener than, in the opinion of the medical advisers to the Ministry, the circumstances require. It is obviously the duty of my right hon. Friend, in the direct interests of the patient, no less than of the State, to secure effective supervision over treatment provided by his Department, and. for this purpose, he does not consider that an examination once in two months is unreasonable or excessive.

MEDICAL TREATMENT (R. C. BATHWAY).

Mr. GEORGE EDWARDS: 5.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that
Mr. R. C. Bathway, Canal House, Ash-well Thorpe, Norfolk, received medical treatment when in France, and that he also applied for a pension and medical treatment in April, 1919, and that six months elapsed before a pension was given or medical treatment granted, and that during that time he was ordered into a home in Norwich by Dr. Day and underwent five serious operations, which involved him in heavy expense; and whether he will make him a grant towards this expense?

Major TRYON: My right hon. Friend recently considered this case very care fully, but found no reason that would justify him in accepting liability for the treatment, which was arranged by the man on his own responsibility. If my hon. Friend has since received any additional information on the matter, perhaps he will communicate further with me.

CHINA (BOXER INDEMNITY).

Mr. MALONE: 15.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Committee appointed to consider the question of the education of Chinese on British lines in all its aspects has yet considered the possibility of commuting the remainder of the Boxer indemnity and applying it to the education of Chinese students in Great Britain; and whether any decision has been reached?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Committee is expected to present its Report very shortly.

PASSPORTS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what Regulation, Order in Council, or other legislative enactment, British subjects resident in Great Britain, against whom no criminal proceedings are pending, are prohibited by a Government Department from entering or leaving the realm or from travelling to countries with which His Majesty is at peace; and how many persons have suffered under this prohibition during the last 12 months?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I am not aware of any Regulation or other
enactment such as is suggested in the first part of the question. If, however, the hon. and gallant Member is thinking of cases in which for good cause the Foreign Office have declined to issue a. British passport, I can only say that the grant of a passport is a matter of discretion. I am not in a position to give exact figures, but cases of refusal are rare.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Article 44 of Magna Charta it is expressly stated that the subject may
liceat unicuique de cetero exire de, regno nostro, et redire salvo et secure
and by what right does the right hon. Gentleman's bureaucrats go against Article 44 of the Charter? May I press for an answer to my question as to whether express permission has to be given under Magna Charta?

Mr. SPEAKER: It may require some reference.

WELLESLEY NAUTICAL SCHOOL BAND.

Mr. DOYLE: 17.
asked the Home Secretary whether it is proposed to disband the Wellesley Nautical School band; and, if so, what are the reasons for such action?

Mr. SHORTT: No, Sir, there is no such proposal.

Mr. DOYLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this statement was made in all the papers on the North East coast and has been repeated on several occasions?

Mr. SHORTT: I believe that something of the sort has been published, but it has been denied, and at any rate there is no truth in it.

PUBLIC MEETINGS, MILL-BANK.

Mr. AMMON: 18.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that for many years past open-air meetings of a local character have been held without interference in Flat Iron Square, Mill-bank, in the City of Westminster; and whether, seeing that these meetings are not demonstrations and are of an ordinary character, they can be allowed to continue without interference on the part of the police?

Mr. SHORTT: It is not the practice of the police to interfere with orderly meetings in Regent's Place (or Flat Iron Square), except at times when Parliament is actually sitting; but at those times, by virtue of the Sessional Order of this House requiring the approaches to be kept free, they have no alternative but to see that no meeting of any kind is held there.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that meetings have been held in Flat Iron Square for the past 25 years without any interference at all?

Mr. SHORTT: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. THORNE: I spoke there myself 20 years ago.

EX-INSPECTOR SYME.

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: 19.
asked the Home Secretary why John Syme, who was taken back to prison last week, has again been released?

Mr. SHORTT: The prisoner was released at the special request of His Majesty, who is anxious that this man should not be allowed to starve himself to death in prison. Syme is imprisoned in consequence of repeated threats of violence towards His Majesty and members of the Royal Family.

SOUTH SHIELDS DISTURBANCE.

Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, arising out of a trade dispute at certain collieries in the South Shields district, miners were picketing outside the St. Hilda colliery on the night of Sunday, 9th July, when quiet and order were maintained; that on the Monday the chief constable was informed that the pickets would be there again on the Monday night, and he replied to the effect that the police would be ready for them; that in the early hours of Tuesday morning the police charged and batoned the crowd which had assembled; that on Friday, 14th July, a demonstration of unemployed outside the guardians' offices was similarly treated; and whether he will institute inquiries into these actions of the South Shields police towards
assemblies of people who had neither threatened nor shown any violence?

Mr. SHORTT: From the reports which I have received regarding the incidents to which the hon. Member refers, it would appear that on neither occasion did the police charge until the crowd had resorted to violent measures; and I see no ground for any action on my part. I should add that the primary responsibility for investigating any complaint as to the conduct of the police rests with the Borough Watch Committee, in whom the control of the force is vested by law.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the other side that statement is absolutely denied, and will he have inquiries made into the matter?

Mr. SHORTT: My information is very complete and in detail, and I really do not see any good in making further inquiries.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the real discontent which has been created by these people being called upon to suffer these pains and penalties, and will he have an inquiry made?

Mr. SHORTT: I am afraid that I cannot hold an inquiry, and the hon. Member must apply to the local watch committee if he wants an inquiry.

IMPERIAL WIRELESS CHAIN.

Lieut. - General Sir AYLMER HUNTER-WESTON: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to arrange for wireless communication within the Empire beyond the chain station in Egypt; how it is proposed to work to the station in Australia which the Commonwealth Government is about to construct for direct communication to Great Britain; and what steps are being taken to reserve for the Empire the necessary wireless wave lengths for long-distance working?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER.-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): I have been asked to answer this question. As regards [...] first part of the question, I would [...] the hon. and gallant Member to the
statement which my right hon. Friend made in the House last Thursday on the subject of the Imperial Wireless Chain in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Frome. Steps have been taken to reserve the right to the use of wavelengths necessary for long-distance working.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

FREE STATE CITIZENSHIP.

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether. under Article 3 of the draft constitution of the Irish Free State, an American citizen with an Irish father or mother may become immediately, and without any term of probation, a citizen of the Irish Free State: and whether, on the other hand, an Englishman, Scotsman, or Welshman must undergo a domiciliary period of seven years before acquiring Irish citizenship?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): An American citizen whose father or mother was born in Ireland will, at the date when the Constitution comes into operation, be entitled to Free State citizenship if he is then domiciled in the Free State. The Article contains no provision as to any term of probation. An Englishman or Scotsman or Welshman who has at that date been domiciled for seven years in the area of the Irish Free State will similarly be entitled to Free State citizenship. If the hon. Member has in mind the future acquisition of Free State citizenship after the Constitution comes into operation, I must refer him to the answer given to the hon. Member for Rotherham on Tuesday, the 18th July.

Mr. MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the Free State Government, and ask whether they will see, when considering the Constitution, that they place British subjects upon the same basis of equality as far as the privileges of citizenship are concerned as American citizens on the ground that British subjects have had to bear taxation for the trouble taking place in Ireland at the present moment?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think that would be very convenient. I should like to see Englishmen well treated. I think it is quite possible that Englishmen,
Welshmen and Scotsmen who happen to be temporarily resident in Ireland at the moment when the Constitution comes into force would not wish to take up Irish Free State citizenship. I can also quite understand that there are numbers of Irishmen who emigrated to America who would be glad to come home to their native land now that conditions are being established which they will welcome.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: In the meantime, are men like myself British citizens, Colonials, or what?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think my hon. Friend's rights and prerogatives will be, absolutely unimpaired.

MALICIOUS INJURIES COMMISSION.

Colonel NEWMAN: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the amount of public money involved, and of the fact that, in the opinion of Lord Shaw's Commission, its decisions will, when it is able to resume its work, be largely based on the decisions already arrived at in the 10 cases it has been able to hear, he is able to say that the first two interim Reports of the Commission will be made available for the House and the public?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have as yet only received one Report from the Commission. This Report consists of two parts: the first raises certain questions of procedure, and one question of principle, which is not yet determined; the second consists of a Schedule setting out the names of the claimants in the cases decided, the amounts awarded by the Courts under the Malicions Injury Acts, and the amounts awarded by the Commission. It will be seen that the Report does not, as is suggested by the hon. and gallant Member, throw any light upon the principles which have actuated the Commission in reaching their decisions, and there would not appear to be any reason of public interest to justify the expense of publishing it.

Colonel NEWMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the First Interim Report. Can he, say what has become of the Second Report?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have only received one Report, and until I obtain the second, I am unable to answer the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question.

Captain W. BENN: Does the Schedule of the Report allocate liability for the damage done?

Mr. CHURCHILL: We have not yet reached the point on which the hon. and gallant Member can make his score.

Colonel NEWMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask for the publication of the Second Report, and if I put another question down on this point will he answer it?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I must first of all receive the Second Report. After that, I will consider whether it should be published or not, and then, if the hon. and gallant Member will ask me a further question, I shall be able to tell him.

Colonel NEWMAN: 52.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that Lord Shaw's Commission has suspended its sittings for a period of at least two months, he will say if the work of the Commission is to be continued in some other shape during the interval; and is he aware of the added difficulty, and, in many cases of distress, which the total suspension of the work of the Commission will mean to those who hold decrees all granted in respect of damage done more than a year ago.

Mr. CHURCHILL: In reply to the first part of the question I would refer the; hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to a question which he addressed to me on the 13th instant, in which I stated that during the absence of the Chairman of the Commission the Commission will, of course, continue in existence with undiminished powers. There is no foundation for the suggestion that the work of the Commission will be suspended.

Colonel NEWMAN: Did not the right hon. Gentleman ask me to put this question down again? Is he aware that Lord Shaw has gone away, that the other Commissioners have gone away, that the Commission's house is shut up, and that nothing will be done for the next two months unless someone is appointed to carry on the work?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that the investigators have full powers to arrive at settlements, and they will arrive at settlements, and, those settlements having been ratified by the Commission
on their return, the decrees will be complete. I understand that there will be no loss of time.

Colonel NEWMAN: Is it a fact that investigators have been appointed, and, if so, who are they, who appointed them, how are they being paid, and how many are there?

Mr. CHURCHILL: They were op-pointed by the Commission. As to their names and remuneration, when I know them myself I shall, if I am asked a question, be very glad to give an answer.

Mr. G. MURRAY: Is it not the case that the Lord Chancellor, in another place a few days ago, stated that two or even three Commissions would be set up, if necessary, in order to deal with these cases, and, further, that Sub-commissions were to be set up; and is the policy of the Government stated in this House or in another place?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I happened to have the opportunity of hearing what the Lord Chancellor said. He stated that if the machinery should be inadequate more Sub-commissions would be set up to deal with the outstanding volume of cases.

Colonel NEWMAN: Have these investigators full power to decide what the awards shall be?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question has been answered.

PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT (EXECUTIVE).

Colonel NEWMAN: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the names and offices held at present by members composing the executive of the third Dail, or who constitute the chief officers of the Provisional Government of the Irish Free State, have been communicated to the Government of Great Britain; and, if so, will he give their names, in view of the difficulty in which persons domiciled in Ireland, but resident in Great Britain, are placed when it is necessary for them to communicate with a member of the Government of the Irish Free State or his office?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As the hon. and gallant Member is aware, the new Parliament of Southern Ireland, resulting from the recent elections, has not yet met, and I am unable to say whether any
changes in the personnel of the Provisional Government are in contemplation, but any such changes will, of course, be made in public in the usual way.

Colonel NEWMAN: If I want to com municate with the Minister of Defence, or the Minister of Finance, to whom should I write?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should write to the Secretary of the Provisional Government in Dublin.

KIDNAPPING, WEST DONEGAL.

Colonel GRETTON: 53.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a report from West Donegal, stating that parties of irregulars from Glenveagh Castle in motor cars visited a number of farmhouses in the Churchill and Termon districts and conscripted about 11 young women, whom they brought with them to the castle to act as domestic servants for those who are in occupation there; that the mother of one of the girls, who vigorously protested against the taking away of her daughter, was placed in a motor car and driven away for a few miles, after which she was put out on the roadside, and the car resumed its journey to the castle; and whether, in view of recent outrages on women in Ireland, any steps have been taken, or will be taken, to secure the release of these young women?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My attention has been drawn to a newspaper report of this outrage, but I am unable to vouch for its accuracy. In any case, the matter would appear to be one for the Provisional Government to deal with, and I am glad to observe that, according to the latest reports, their troops have now compelled the evacuation of Glenveagh Castle, and are steadily extending their control over County Donegal.

Lieut.-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITE: Will not the right hon. Gentleman take further steps in this case, in view of the fact that the outrages occurred in the Churchill district?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is a joke, I suppose.

Colonel GRETTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman made no inquiry and taken
no steps to secure the arrest of these people and the release of those who have been kidnapped?

Mr. CHURCHILL: This happened in one of the 26 counties, and, if Irish girls are kidnapped and carried off under such atrocious conditions by violent persons, in my opinion it is for the Irish men to see that they are released; and that is what is being done.

Colonel ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman now quite satisfied with his policy?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am increasingly satisfied.

Colonel GRETTON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it to be his duty to make inquiries?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I consider that this is an exceptional incident, which should be left to the Irish people to deal with.

RELEASE OF ULSTER SPECIAL CONSTABLES.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: (by Private Notice)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information regarding a newspaper report that members of the Ulster Special Constabulary who were kidnapped have been released by Free State troops at Dundalk?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. I have just been informed by the Provisional Government that, when the military barracks at Dundalk were captured by the National Free State troops, 17 members of the Ulster Special Constabulary were rescued and liberated. They were escorted by the Free State troops to the railway station the night before last, and given free railway warrants to their homes
Further, I am informed that the Provisional Government procured the release, yesterday, from the interior of 10 additional members of the Ulster Special Constabulary, who had been taken from the Belcoo Barracks, County Fermanagh, and that they are proceeding to their homes.

Captain CRAIG: Are the men in the latter case the men who were imprisoned in Athlone?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that must be so.

MOTOR TYRES (DUMPING).

Mr. W. GREENWOOD: 26.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that over 14,000,000 lbs. of yarn trade is being lost annually by the Lancashire cotton spinners owing to the dumping of motor tyres at below cost price into this country; and if he purposes taking any action?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): I have been asked to reply. I am not aware of the basis on which my hon. Friend has arrived at the figure which he quotes, but it seems, in any case, to be exaggerated. Action can be taken to apply Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act to any class of goods only on complaint made to the Board of Trade, and after full investigation by a committee as provided for by the Act.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Is the hon Gentleman aware that the imports are almost double those of January this year?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I cannot say I am aware of that fact. I cannot give the figures. I cannot get anywhere near the 14,000,000 lbs. mentioned in the question.

Mr. GREENWOOD: IS the hon. Gentleman aware that: there are between 9,000 and 10,000 people unemployed in the tyre-making industry at the present time?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I cannot state accurately the number of men unemployed, but with regard to any action suggested, the Safeguarding of Industries Act provides the proper remedy.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS (COUNCIL MEETING).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 27.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Council of the League of Nations is meeting in London this week; where the meetings are being held; who are the British delegates; whether he himself intends to assist at any of the sessions of the Council; and what are the subjects to be discussed?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): The Council of the League of
Nations is in session at St. James's Palace. My Noble Friend the Lord President of the Council and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education are acting as the British delegates. The answer to the fourth part of the question is in the negative A copy of the agenda can be seen in the Library of the House.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask why only one copy of the agenda is placed in the Library, and hon. Members are not allowed to take it away? Why is it it cannot be published? The present arrangement is very inconvenient.

Viscount CURZON: Is Lord Esher a delegate? Does he represent anybody?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why is there all this secrecy about the meetings of the Council of the League of Nations?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware that there is any secrecy

LORDS OF THE TREASURY.

Captain BENN: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether it has been customary in the past that one of the Lords of the Treasury should be a Scottish Member; and whether there is at present any Lordship of the Treasury vacant?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and to the second part of the question in the affirmative.

Captain BENN: Can the Prime Minister say why the Scottish Whip is not allowed to be a Member of the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: He is.

Captain BENN: Oh, no.

CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND.

Captain BENN: 29.
asked the Prime Minister if he will state in detail what duties are at present being discharged by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; and whether their nature and extent is such as to occupy the whole time of a Minister of Cabinet rank?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Chief Secretary is responsible to Parliament for the administration or liquidation of all Imperial services in Southern Ireland which have not been transferred to the Provisional Government and of such reserved or excepted services in Northern Ireland as were formerly within his jurisdiction. He is also responsible for dealing with any questions relating to matters which arose prior to the establishment of the Provisional Government. The total estimated expenditure in the current year in respect of these services exceeds nine million pounds, and some of them, in particular the liquidation of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the settlement of claims for malicious injuries, involve questions of very considerable magnitude, and require very careful and detailed administration. In addition to these administrative duties, my right hon. Friend is a member of the Cabinet Committee which deals with Irish affairs.

Captain BENN: Can the Prime Minister fix any time limit for the discontinuance of this office?

The PRIME MINISTER: As soon as these matters are liquidated.

Mr. HOGGE: Why does it require a Minister at £5,000 a year to wind up about half the work he used to do? Cannot my right hon. Friend, as an economist, get the work done very much cheaper?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman put the Secretary of State for Air in the Cabinet and deprive the Irish Secretary of Cabinet rank, thereby mitigating a double grievance?

HONOURS LISTS.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 31 and 32.
asked the Prime Minister (1) of how many persons the Royal Commission on the recommendation of honours will consist;
(2) when he proposes to consult the various parties in the House in respect of the personnel of the Royal Commission on the recommendation of honours?

Mr. LANE-FOX: 37.
asked the Prime Minister what steps, if any, have been taken to punish or reprimand the official
responsible for the blunder which caused the offer of a peerage to Sir J. B. Robinson?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 38.
asked the Prime Minister if he will afford facilities for the Debate on the bestowal of honours to be resumed; whether the composition of the promised Royal Commission has yet been decided upon; and when it will be appointed?

The PRIME MINISTER: Immediate steps are being taken with a view to the appointment of the Royal Commission, but I am not yet in a position to make any definite statement as to its composition. The consultations in regard to the personnel will take place with the least possible delay. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Barks-ton Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox), the circumstances which led to this offer were fully explained in another place, and I can add nothing further. It is not the intention of the Government to give facilities for the Debate to be resumed.

Mr. LANE-FOX: Why should the responsibility be put solely on the Prime Minister? Would it not be far wiser to throw it on the proper person?

The PRIME MINISTER: I accept the responsibility. It must be mine. I am responsible to the Houses of Parliament whenever any mistake of this kind is made.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Would it not be better, before arriving at a settlement of the personnel of this Commission and other questions, that Members of the House of Lords, as well as Members of the House of Commons, should meet the right hon. Gentleman together? If he could give us something rather more adequate than a notice across the Floor of the House, no doubt a meeting could be arranged at a very early date.

The PRIME MINISTER: I should have done so, but I only arrived here this morning. I am quite prepared to meet them at any time, and I could give any hour to-morrow afternoon, or at any rate I could do it on Monday after Question Time in my room in the House.

Sir D. MACLEAN: We will arrange it.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: May I take it the right hon. Gentleman has not
already selected the Members beforehand?

The PRIME MINISTER: That would have been a breach of faith. I promised I would confer with those more or less in charge of this matter in both Houses before any selection was made. That is exactly what I want to see them upon. I propose to submit certain names to them for discussion.

Mr. ROSE: Is it proposed to put the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) on the Commission?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think I had bettor say nothing about names.

Mr. HOGGE: Does the statement of the right hon. Gentleman apply equally to the Chairman?

The PRIME MINISTER: I shall put the whole proposal before the meeting.

SAGHALIEN ISLAND (JAPANESE TROOPS).

Mr. KENNEDY: 33.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has received official confirmation to the effect that the Japanese Government has decided to withdraw its troops from the northern half of the island of Saghalien?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Japanese Government has stated officially that Japanese troops will be withdrawn from Northern Saghalien as soon as a satisfactory settlement of the Nicolaievsk massacre can be obtained.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 35.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has received official information that the Japanese Government has decided to withdraw its troops from the mainland of Siberia, opposite the island of Saghalien, by the 30th September; and does the decision include evacuation of the whole of the maritime province by 30th September?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave
to the hon. Member for West Nottingham on 29th June last.

TRUSTS AND COMBINES.

Mr. WATERSON: 39.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government are still pursuing their inquiries with regard to the extent and operation of trusts and combines; and whether it is intended to introduce legislation on this subject next Session, having regard to the promise officially given on behalf of the Government early in 1921?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have been asked to reply. The whole subject is still under consideration, but I cannot give any undertaking as to the introduction of legislation.

Mr. WATERSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this matter has been under consideration for 18 months? When will the Government come to a decision on this question, particularly in view of the fact that the combines' strength in the country is such that they are forcing goods on the community at enhanced prices?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The hon. Gentleman is well aware; that the question is under consideration.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: Did not the Government give a definite pledge 18 months ago that a Bill of this kind would be introduced?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: On the contrary, a statement was made early in this Session that there was no chance of legislation this year.

Major M. WOOD: When that part of the Profiteering Bill which deals with trusts was repealed was there not a definite undertaking that it should be re-enacted?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The matter is a very difficult one. It is under consideration, as I have said.

Mr. WATERSON: I want to put it very plainly. Are we to understand that the apathy of the Government towards this matter is really acquiescence with the continuation of trusts and combines which are fleecing the people?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Certainly not.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 40.
asked the Prime Minister if the Government will favourably consider the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the anomalies which exist under the present Old Age Pensions Act, with a view to promoting legislation to remove the same?

The CHANCELLOR of the EX-CHEQUER (Sir Robert Horne): The Government are not at present prepared to re-open the settlement embodied in the Old Age Pensions Act, 1919.

Mr. THOMSON: Would it not be only in keeping with the rest of the Government's policy in reversing legislation to repeal this Act?

Mr. KENNEDY: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the conditions for the receipt of old age pensions are the same in the Isle of Man as in this country: that the Government of the Isle of Man have been paying the pension to Isle of Man residents in this country, and for the last two years have been paying the pension to British residents in the Isle of Man, on the assumption that the British Government would arrange for reciprocity in this matter: and whether, seeing that the effort of the Isle of Man Government to secure this reciprocity has failed, and in consequence the British residents in the Isle of Man are now being denied their pensions, he will explain the reason for the failure to enter into an arrangement?

Sir R. HORNE: The conditions for the receipt of old age pensions in the Isle of Man and this country were formerly nearly (though not exactly) the same, but since the Tynwald Resolution of 22nd November last, authorising the grant of old age pensions to persons in the Isle of Man of 50 years and upwards in certain cases, the conditions are no longer the same. The Isle of Man Government was informed on 1st December, 1920, that the adoption of reciprocal arrangements involved special legislation, which could not be contemplated having regard to the small
number of persons affected (namely, 19 Manxmen and 29 Englishmen). In view of the different conditions for the receipt of old age pensions in the two countries at the present time, there is no longer any question of introducing the reciprocal arrangements proposed in 1920.

WAR SERVICE CANTEENS.

Viscount WOLMER: 41.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the statements contained in Command Paper 1717, War Service Canteens, that the Navy and Army Canteen Board have, since 1st May, 1919, lost in trading the sum of £2,469,370 out of the profits and assets of the Expeditionary Force Canteens, which Lord Kitchener in 1915 had promised should be entirely devoted to the benefit of ex-service men and their dependants, he will order a public investigation to be made into the circumstances under which this property was handed over to the Navy and Army Canteen Board, and into the conduct and administration of the Navy and Army Canteen Board?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir. R. Sanders): I have been asked to answer this question. I would ask my Noble Friend to await the Debate to-morrow on the War Service Canteens (Disposal of Surplus) Bill.

Viscount WOLMER: Is the hon. Baronet aware of the very grave allegations that are made in this week's "Truth" as to the embezzlement of a large portion of this money, and can we obtain an undertaking from the Government that there will not be an attempt to rush this Bill through before the facts have been sifted?

Sir R. SANDERS: That is a very different question.

INCOME TAX, ISLE OF MAN AND CHANNEL ISLANDS.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 43 and 44.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he is aware that Income Tax in the Isle of Man does not exceed Is. 5½d. in the £;and whether he has approached the authorities in the isle with a view to their increasing their
annual contribution toward the Imperial Exchequer, as suggested in the Geddes Report;
(2) whether he is aware that in Guernsey the Income Tax is 7d. in the £, and in Jersey there is no Income Tax; and whether he has taken any steps, as suggested in the Geddes Report, to invite both islands to make a contribution towards the Imperial Exchequer, especially in view of the fact that the cost to Army Votes of the regular garrison and militia amounts to £365,000?

Sir R. HORNE: I am aware of the conditions in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, and I propose to raise with the Island authorities in both cases the question of increased contributions to the Imperial Exchequer. It has been necessary, however, to collect information as to the financial position, and this has necessarily taken time. In the case of the Isle of Man any addition to the statutory contribution of £10,000 per annum will require legislation.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman in favour of taxation without representation? In the second place, is he aware that the Islands do not want regular troops in their barracks, and that the troops are sent there because there are no barracks on this side? Finally, is he aware that the Militia only costs these large sums because the Imperial Government insist on a large permanent regular staff?

Sir R. HORNE: I think my hon. and gallant Friend will recognise that it is not a matter of taxation, but of contribution for services which are rendered in the protection of these Islands along with all the other parts of His Majesty's Dominions. The considerations to which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred will be regarded, along with the other relevant matters.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter was considered during the War in connection with the very inadequate contribution that the Isle of Man was making during the War, and will he take all these relevant matters into consideration?

Sir R. HORNE: Undoubtedly, all these matters will be taken into consideration.

GERMANY (INCOME TAX).

Mr. WISE: 45.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Germany has reduced the Income Tax in the last four months?

Sir R. HORNE: No, Sir; but I understand that fresh legislation has just been introduced and is now before the Reichstag to adjust the scale on which the tax is graduated to the depreciation of the mark.

Mr. WISE: Is that a reduction of Income Tax?

Sir R. HORNE: In some cases, I suppose, it may be. In others it will be a large increase in the Income Tax.

UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much, if any, of the £938,000,000 now owing to the United States is due to unpaid interest to date; and what sum will be required yearly in future to pay interest if the debt is not reduced?

Sir R. HORNE: The principal of the debt owing to the United States Government amounts to-day to ․4,135,818,358, having been reduced from ․4,166,318,358 since 31st March last. The amount of interest accrued unpaid to the 31st March, 1922, was ․598,373,000, as stated in my answer to the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) on the 9th May last. The figure of £938,000,000 quoted from my speech on Friday last represents the sterling equivalent, at an exchange of ․4.44 to the £, of the principal outstanding on 31st March last. The answer to the last part of the question depends on the arrangements made for funding.

Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Government are not paying their way, instead of running into debt?

Sir R. HORNE: I am very glad to answer that question. The amount with which I have been dealing is an amount which we owe to the United States of America. It was borrowed in the course of the War in order to help our Allies. I think I am right in saying that not a single pound of it went in any way to British services. It was necessary, in
order to aid our Allies, that we should provide them with the munitions necessary to fight their battles.

Mr. THORNE: But why has the interest not been paid from time to time, instead of its being allowed to run on?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question cannot be argued now.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

NECESSITOUS AREAS.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 55.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the increasing strain caused on certain local authorities by the prolonged period of unemployment, he can now state the result of the investigations of his committee inquiring into the possibility of securing a definition of a necessitous area upon which the Government can act for the purpose of granting temporary financial assistance?

Major BARNST0N (for Sir A. Mond): My right hon. Friend presumes that the hon. Member refers to the scheme recently submitted on behalf of certain Poor Law authorities. He has come to the conclusion, after full consideration, that this scheme is one which he cannot recommend the Government to accept. The hon. Member will no doubt be aware that a Measure is now in progress which will give material financial assistance to Poor Law authorities, and indirectly to other local authorities, by reducing the "gaps" in unemployment insurance benefit.

Mr. THOMSON: Would the hon. Gentleman make representations to the Minister of Health that what has been done is entirely inadequate to relieve necessitous areas, and will he submit a counter-scheme for their consideration if he cannot accept the one they have put forward?

Major BARNSTON: I will certainly communicate that suggestion.

Mr. THORNE: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman convey to the Minister of Health that between now and September, unless the Government come to the relief of some of the boards of guardians, the rates are going to be increased at least 2s. in the pound?

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (BELIEF).

Captain O'GRADY: 63.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Hunslet Union Guardians, Leeds, are strongly opposed to the action of the Government in partially transferring the responsibility for unemployment relief to local government bodies on the grounds that it is impossible to effect any additional economy for the purpose of providing revenue for such relief, and that the result of the action of the Government will entail a further burden upon the already impoverished ratepayers; and, having regard to that fact, will the State take over such responsibility from local authorities, providing that part of the revenue required by further reduction in non-urgent departmental expenditure?

Major BARNSTON: My right hon. Friend has received a copy of the resolution passed by the Hunslet Guardians. He is not at present in a position to make any statement as to the latter part of the question.

HIGHWAYS IMPROVEMENT.

Captain O'GRADY: 64.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the circular letter of 1st June, 1922, from the Unemployment Grants Committee to local governing bodies, with reference to providing work for the relief of unemployment with assistance from State funds, has been under consideration of the Hunslet Union Guardians (Leeds), and that the guardians express the view that. as a means of providing employment during the coming autumn and winter, the Government should take in hand the widening and improvement of the public highways of the country; and whether, having regard to the suggestion, the Minister will issue instructions to the Grants Committee accordingly?

Major BARNSTON: My right hon. Friend has received a copy of the resolution of the Hunslet Guardians. Large grants have already been made, by the Ministry of Transport and the Unemployment Grants Committee, for widening and improving public highways, and local authorities were recently invited by the Ministry of Transport to submit further schemes for the coming autumn and winter.

TRADE UNIONS (GRANTS).

Mr. W. THORNE: 62.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the Government have made serious reductions in the administrative grants to trade unions' arrangements under Section 17 of The Unemployment insurance Act, 1920; if he is aware that a reduction of 6d. per week per member is insufficient to cover the cost of administration, and that a number of very large and important trade unions have refused to work under the new arrangements; and if he can state whether the Government intend making any modifications in connection with the matter?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): Yes, Sir. There have been reductions and further reductions are in contemplation. Several large trade unions have recently terminated their arrangements under Section 17, giving as their reason that they regard the rate of grant as insufficient, but I do not think a larger grant could justifiably be allowed out of the Unemployment Fund for the work to be covered. I am in communication with the General Council of the Trades Union Congress on the question of the rate of grant to be allowed after August, but cannot hold out any hope that the rate provisionally communicated to the Council can be altered in any material respect.

ALTENS.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 65.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Regulation disqualifying aliens for the receipt of uncovenanted employment benefit is having the effect of disqualifying men who have lived all their lives in this country: that, for instance, many members of the Cigar Makers' and Tobacco Workers' Union are technically aliens, but have lived in this country for upwards of 30 years; that they are unemployed now for the first time after many years' continuous' employment, and that some of them have lost sons in the War; and whether he will consider the advisability of removing the disqualification imposed upon aliens, or, at least, limit the disqualification to aliens whose domicile in this country has been of short duration?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Having regard to the limited sums available for the payment of uncovenanted benefit, it was decided that such benefit cannot be
allowed to aliens other than British born wives or widows of aliens. This rule has been modified so as to allow benefit to aliens who have served in His Majesty's Forces. I am afraid I cannot see my way to allow any further modification. I should add that aliens are in no way disqualified on account of nationality for the receipt of covenanted benefit, that is, benefit based upon contributions.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware these people will then fall on the local rates, and that it amounts to the same thing in the end?

Mr. KILEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these aliens have to pay their contributions?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Whatever they pay they will get the benefit. We are asked to give them uncovenanted benefit.

LIVESTOCK (IMPORTS FROM IRELAND).

Mr. WISE: 70.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what are the numbers of cows, cattle, calves, sheep, lambs, and pigs imported into Great Britain from Ireland during 1920 and 1921. and the approximate value?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): As the reply is in the form of a statistical statement, I propose, with the permission of the House, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

NUMBER OF CATTLE, SHEEP, AND SWINE IMPORTED INTO GREAT BRITAIN FROM IRELAND IN 1920 AND 1921, with the estimated Value of the Imports in 1920 (compiled from Reports published by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland).

—
1921.
1920.



No
No.
Estimated Value.





£


Milch Cows
31,724
47,001
1,884,898


Other Cattle
697,566
852,547
33,319,095


Calves
39,201
27,290
409,350


Sheep
244,714
245,525
1,471,022


Lambs
342,254
346,291
1,350,535


Swine
65,854
166,869
2.455,083

NOTE.—The value of the imports in 1921 has not yet been published.

SHELL-SHOCK.

Mr. G. MURRAY: 71.
asked the Secretary of State for War when the Report of Lord Southborough's Committee on Shell-shock in the Army during the War will be presented to Parliament?

Sir R. SANDERS: This Report will be presented to Parliament at an early date.

Mr. MURRAY: When will that early date be—before the rising of Parliament?

Sir R. SANDERS: I hope so. but I cannot be certain.

AMERICAN ARMY OF OCCUPATION.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 34.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government take any objection to the American Government asking for their share in priority of the costs of the Army of Occupation; and, if not. is England joining with France in replying to the American demand in a sense critical of that demand?

Sir R. HORNE: The claim of the Government of the United States of America in respect of the cost of the American Army of Occupation is at present before the Allied Governments, and I am not at present in a position to add anything to the statements previously made on the subject.

Mr. SHORT: What is the total amount of the claim?

Sir R. HORNE: I cannot state that from memory.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

LOCAL TAXATION.

Mr. G. MURRAY: 56.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he will make a statement before the House rises as to what action the Government propose to give effect to the recommendations contained in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Local Taxation in Scotland signed on 11th May of this year?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I hope so.

Mr. MURRAY: May we take it, from the shortness of the reply, that the right hon. Gentleman is not fully appreciative of the necessity for taking action?

Mr. MUNRO: Certainly not. That is a most unworthy suggestion.

Mr. MURRAY: May I have a reply—

Mr. SPEAKER: Not to that kind of innuendo.

SHERIFF COURTS.

Lieut.-Colonel A. POWNALL: 57.
asked the Secretary for Scotland what action has been taken to increase the existing scale of fees to defray the expenses of the Sheriff Courts on the same lines as is done in England, as recommended in the Geddes Report?

Mr. MUNRO: A Committee was appointed by me in November last to consider, inter alia, the fees payable in the Sheriff Courts. In accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, the fees were considerably increased as from 1st April last.

WESTERN ISLES (RELIEF WORKS).

Dr. MURRAY: 58.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that, owing to the continued depression in the fishing and other local industries, unemployment is still very serious in Lewis, Harris, and the Western Isles generally: and whether, with a view to relieving the distress resulting therefrom, he will take steps to extend the time during which relief works on roads, etc., will be carried on?

Mr. MUNRO: I am obtaining a report on the situation in the districts mentioned by my hon. Friend. I would remind him, however, that the special relief measures adopted last winter in those districts were sanctioned for a limited period. A special extension till the end of this month WAS granted in the case of certain works. At present I cannot hold out any prospect that a further extension will be authorised, but I will consider the question further on receipt of the report for which I have asked.

SMALL HOLDINGS.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: 59.
asked the Secretary for Scotland how many men settled on holdings by the Board of Agriculture for Scotuand have not yet had their rents finally fixed: and how-many men have given up their holdings or are under notice to quit because they would not agree to the rents proposed by the Board?

Mr. MUNRO: Rents have not been finally fixed in 178 eases for reasons which I will give in my Statement on Land Settlement this afternoon. Fifteen holders have given up their holdings, and in four cases notice to quit has been served because the holders declined to accept the usual conditions of let which other holders on the same estate accepted. Probably the burden of the rent and building loan annuity influenced the holders in some or all of these cases, but other considerations may also have influenced their decision.

Major WOOD: 60.
asked the Secretary for Scotland how many applicants for holdings settled by the Board of Agriculture since 1st January, 1922, were given only yearly tenancies; how many of these yearly tenancies have since been given the tenure of landholders under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911: and how many of these yearly tenants have given up their holdings or are under notice to quit because they declined, on being given landholders' tenure, to take over the buildings on their holdings at the Board's valuation?

Mr. MUNRO: The answer refers to the question as printed. With two exceptions, all the applicants settled by the Board since 1st January last have been installed on landholders' tenure. The answer to the second and third parts of the question is none in each case.

Major WOOD: 61.
asked the Secretary for Scotland how many applicants for small holdings in Scotland have been settled under the Board of Agriculture schemes since 1st January, 1919, till the latest date for which statistics are available; how many of those settled in that time are ex-service men; how many applications from ex-service men are not yet disposed of; and how many applications have been written off as disposed of because the applicants declined to accept the holdings offered on the terms offered by the Board?

Mr. MUNRO: During the period from 1st January, 1919, to 30th June, 1922. entry to new holdings and enlargements has been given by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland to 1,962 applicants, including 1,194 ex-service men. The number of outstanding applications from ex-service men is 4,363, of which number, however, 25 to 30 per cent. are believed
to be ineffective. No applications have been written off as disposed of because the applicants declined to accept holdings on the terms on which they were offered by the Board.

Major WOOD: How many of the first number were enlargements!

Mr. MUNRO: I cannot answer that without notice.

GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS (PRICES).

Sir JOSEPH LARMOR: 67.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Appendix to the Report of the Royal Commission on the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, containing the evidence on which their Report is based, is now published at the price of 25s.: and whether he can provide means of making this document more accessible to impecunious members of the universities concerned and to Members of this House?

Sir JOHN BAIRD (for Mr. Hilton Young): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As the hon. Member is aware, the Appendix is a bulky volume and contains a high proportion of expensive tabular matter. The price of 25s. was fixed, in accordance with the general practice, to be explained in my reply today to the hon. and learned Member for the Camlachie Division, and I regret that I am unable to recommend its reduction.

Sir J. LARMOR: Is the hon. Baronet aware that a great deal of the expense of tabular matter has little relevance to the object of the Report, consisting in part of a statement of the benefit obtainable from various insurance companies?

Sir J. BAIRD: I shall be very glad to discuss the matter of a modification with my hon. Friend, but it is a fact that tabular matter is very expensive to print, and accounts for a very great part of the high cost of publication.

Sir HALFORD MACKINDER: 68.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on what basis the sale prices of Government publications are now being fixed; and whether the cost of free distribution to Members of Parliament and others is in effect borne by members of the public purchasing copies?

Sir J. BAIRD: As a general rule, Government publications are now issued at cost price, i.e., if every copy printed were sold the cost of paper, printing, binding, etc., would just be recovered. In the case of Parliamentary publications, the urgency of the work prevents these costs being ascertained separately for each publication before it is issued, but a scale of charges has been laid down which, on the average, gives the same result. It-will be obvious from this that a proportionate part of the whole cost of each publication represented by the number of copies not sold—whether these are used for official purposes, issued free to Members of Parliament or others, or retained in stock—remains a charge upon the Exchequer.

INLAND REVENUE DUTIES.

Mr. HANNON: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of arrears of the various Inland Revenue duties on 30th June, 1922, and 30th June, 1921?

Sir R. HORNE: I regret that I am unable to procure the information desired by my hon. Friend, without a great and disproportionate expenditure of time and labour.

EXTERNAL DEBT (REDUCTION).

Mr. HANNON: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the net reduction of the external debt between 1st April, 1919, and 30th June, 1922; and how much of this was made by external payments and how much by cancellation of mutual indebtedness?

Sir R. HORNE: The net reduction of external debt between the 1st April, 1919, and the 30th June, 1922, amounted to£293,805,000. Of this reduction,£54,903,000 was effected by mutual cancellation of indebtedness. £24,067,000 by conversion into National War Bonds of United Kingdom 5-i per cent. Bonds and Notes issued in the United States of America, and £214,835,000 by cash payments.

Mr. W. THORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think there is any possibility of all the countries concerned coming to a definite decision to cancel all war debts?

Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid that is a very big question.

CAPITAL ISSUES (OVERSEAS).

Mr. HANNON: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the net capital issue raised in this country for overseas purposes during the period 1st April, 1919, to 30th June, 1922.

Sir R. HORNE: No official returns of capital issues in this country exist. I would refer the hon. Member to figures published from time to time in such papers as "The Economist," which, however, usually show gross and not net amounts.

MEDICAL TREATMENT, WEST ESSEX.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 34.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the strictures passed by the West Essex coroner on a doctor who, after being twice requested to do so, declined to attend a patient, and when he arrived at the man's home the patient was on the point of death, and died later, apparently through lack of early medical attention; whether the doctor or the man were on the panel; and whether he will take steps so that such incidents may not recur?

Major BARNSTON: My right hon. Friend has made inquiry, and he is informed that at the time of the occurrence the patient was not entitled to medical benefit nor had he ever been on the list of the doctor concerned. This doctor is an insurance practitioner, but there is no question of any failure to carry out his obligations under his agreement with the Insurance Committee.

SIR CHARLES TOWNSHEND.

Sir MARTIN CONWAY: (by Private Notice)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any truth in the reports which have appeared in the Press to the effect that the hon. and gallant Member for The Wrekin (Sir C. Towushend) is proceeding to Angora; and, if so, whether he is doing this by the wish, or at the request, of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. CFCIL HARMSWORTH: Our most recent information is that the hon. and gallant Member arrived at Beyrout on the 12th inst., and proceeded on the
17th inst. to Aleppo and Alexandretta with the declared intention of proceeding to Angora. So far from this journey being undertaken at the request, or on behalf of His Majesty's Government, this action on the part of the hon. and gallant Member would be not only against the wishes of His Majesty's Government but in violation of a pledge which he gave on the 8th May before a passport was issued to him. His written statement made on that occasion was as follows:

"I have no intention at present of proceeding to Turkey whilst negotiations for a peace are proceeding, under the circumstances of my passport for Turkey having been refused 'until a more favourable opportunity.' As soon as peace is signed, however, it is my intention to apply for a passport for that country.

(Sd.) CHARlES V. F. TOWNSHEND.

Major-General.

8th May. 1922.

The hon. and gallant Member added verbally that the purpose of the intended journey was to visit his wife in Paris, some relations at Madrid, and then to take a 15-days' cure at Carlsbad.

It was only on receipt of these statements and assurances that a passport for France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Holland, Switzerland, and Czecho-Slovakia, but marked "not valid for travelling to Turkey," was issued to the hon. and gallant Member. It is deeply to be regretted that to all appearance he should have taken a course quite inconsistent with his explicit undertaking.

Captain GEE: Has the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs warned the hon. and gallant Member for The Wrekin that he was going to impugn his honour when he was not here to protect himself: May I also ask whether the hon. and gallant Member has broken his word when in his written statement he gave the undertaking: That while negotiations for peace were proceeding he would not enter Turkey.' Is it not a fact that the negotiations for peace have been broken off, and, therefore, the hon. and gallant. Member has not broken his word?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The hon. and gallant Member is mistaken. Negotiations for peace are still continuing. The hon. Member will observe that I made no direct charge against the hon. and gallant Member for The Wrekin. The
statement was hypothetical, that "If he does proceed to Angora he will have violated his word."

Captain GEE: The hon. Member said it was the expressed intention of the hon. and gallant Member to enter Turkey. [Hon. MEMBERS: "No!"]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: May I ask the Leader of the House what business he proposes to take to-morrow and next week?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): To-morrow, the first Order will be the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill, Third Reading. The second Order will be the Allotments (Scotland) Bill, Second Reading: and the Third Order, War Services Canteens (Disposal of Surplus) Bill, Second Beading. Also minor Orders on the Paper.
Next week we allocate for Monday the Debate on the cattle embargo.
On Tuesday, I shall have to make a Motion in regard to the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley). This is a preliminary Motion. The effective Motion will be taken at a later stage. I do not suppose the House will require any Debate in connection with this Motion.
I shall also, on Tuesday, make a statement as to the Business which the Government propose to take before the Adjournment, on the Motion that the Eleven o'Clock Rule be suspended for the remainder of this portion of the Session. Afterwards, we shall take the Electricity Supply Bill [Lords] Report, the Allotments Bill [Lords] Report, and minor Orders on the Paper.
On Wednesday, the twentieth allotted Supply Day, we propose to take the discussion on The Hague Conference, on the Diplomatic and Consular Services Vote. The Committee stages of the outstanding Votes in Supply will be put from the Chair at Ten o'clock.
On Thursday, the twenty-first allotted Supply Day, we shall take the Civil Service Arbitration Board, on the Treasury Vote, and the Report stages of all outstanding Votes in Supply will be put from the Chair at Ten o'clock.
On Friday, we shall take the further stages of Bills on the Paper.
As regards Wednesday's discussion, I should like to utter a word of caution. I am not quite certain what is the present position in regard to The Hague Conference. The telegraphic reports that we have received leave me in some doubt. If the Conference has not finished and is in an inconclusive position by that time, I think that it would be inconvenient to take that particular discussion on that day, and that it would be better to reserve it for one of the stages of the Appropriation Bill. It is, I think, essential for the proper conduct of the Debate that the principal British delegate at the Conference should be present and make a statement to the House, and that the Government should have an opportunity of conferring with their representatives at The Hague Conference before the Debate takes place.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The question of the particular Debate to which the right hon. Gentleman refers can be, arranged between the usual channels. With regard to the business for Friday, I would ask the Leader of the House whether he is aware that there is strong objection on the part of a large number of Members of the House to this contentious Bill, relating to the surplus profits of the canteens, being taken on Friday at all, particularly as the third Order, and especially on this Friday, for a reason with which the right hon. Gentleman is well acquainted. In view of that fact, which I think cannot be doubted, will he not agree to take the Canteens Bill on some other day than on Friday next, for, if it is taken as third Order, is he not aware that there is very little chance of its being reached except at a late hour, when there can be no effective Debate at all?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know on what other day it can be taken. There are large sums of money which cannot be distributed to the service men, who are the beneficiaries, without this legislation. If this Bill is to be treated as highly contentious, and fought throughout, I do not see what result can follow, except to deprive these men of the benefits of the funds, and I hope that the House will co-operate with the Government. It was in deference to the appeal from my Noble Friend the
Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) that the Government postponed the Bill from an earlier date this week until Friday, and I hope that the House will deal with it then, not in the interests of the Government, but of the beneficiaries, who are suffering from the delay which there is in dealing with the matter.

Viscount WOLMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have already distributed several millions of money without coming to Parliament for their authority, and, therefore, whether the Bill be passed on a given day or on some other day makes no difference; and, further, is he aware that there is very strong opposition to this Bill on account of the ex-service men, who believe that the Bill deprives them of about £2,500.000 of money which they were promised by Lord Kitchener?

Colonel ASHLEY: Would it meet with general consent if the Bill were taken as the first Order to-morrow? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Scotland cannot take a back seat!

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill will take any time. I hope that the Scottish Bill, which is non-contentious, will not take time, and I believe that it will not, provided that we do not disturb the equanimity of the Scottish Members by appearing to cast any slur upon the importance of Scottish business. As regards this money, I understand that a certain amount has been distributed, but the propriety of the distribution has been questioned, and no further distribution can take place without the authority of the House of Commons now that that difficulty has been raised. Therefore, until the House of Commons disposes of this question. the beneficiaries can derive no further benefit from the funds which await disbursal.

Viscount WOLMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the accounts were only published last Monday, and we have been asking for them for two years?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes. They were published as soon as they were completed As I said two or three days ago, in reply to my Noble Friend, though the accounts occupy 30 pages, there is a memorandum
prefixed to them, of not more than seven pages, which makes the whole position perfectly clear.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will my right hon. Friend say, approximately, when he hopes that this part of the Session will end? Is it intended to have an Autumn Session?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is. There must be an Autumn Session, for Irish legislation in any circumstances, and. as there is to be an Autumn Session, I imagine that the House would prefer to rise as early as possible, since it must assemble again before Christmas. I propose to make a statement about business, and incidentally to indicate what my hopes are rather than my expectations, on Tuesday next. What has just passed shatters my hopes. If hon. Members feel that the business which is necessary is business which they cannot co-operate in disposing of, then I am afraid that I shall have to recast altogether the prospective programme which I was going to lay before Parliament on Tuesday, and that I shall have to indicate a much later date of rising than I had hoped to do.

Mr. W. THORNE: In reference to the Motion with respect to the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) and in consequence of the many various statements which have appeared in the Press from time to time, may I ask Mr. Speaker whether he has made up his mind as to what the line of procedure will be after the Motion is made?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have a pretty clear idea in my own mind as to what would seem to follow. We shall follow the precedents that obtained in similar cases in the past.

Mr. THORNE: Will you, Sir, explain what they are?

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will see me, I shall be glad to explain.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: In reference to the Canteens Bill, as the opposition to this Bill is, I believe, not so much on account of the Bill itself as in reference to the preparation of the accounts would it be possible to deal with the Bill by giving a promise to those who wish to criticise the preparation of the accounts, or facilities for dealing with the subject on some other occasion, because I have been a member of the Canteens Com-
mittee myself, and I know the circumstances to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, and the possibility, if the Bill does not so forward, of the United Services Fund being deprived of some £3,000,000 or £4,000,000. I think that that would be a gross blunder which is not intended by the Noble Lord or by anyone else in opposing this Bill. Therefore I hope that some arrangement can be made, so that the Bill should be passed to enable the service men to get the benefit of (he fund, while not precluding my Noble Friend and others from criticising generally the management of this account.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that I can promise an early day before the Adjournment for the discussion upon the Bill, nor do I know whether the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel J. Ward) interprets rightly the mind of my Noble Friend, who has been a warm opponent of this Bill and who says that the Bill itself is entirely contentious. I am desirous of facilitating its progress, and, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Colonel Ward), the Noble Lord (Viscount Wolmer), and those concerned will consult with my colleagues at the War Office and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, we on our side will do anything that we can to facilitate the rapid progress of the Measure, so that the money may be distributed among the prospective beneficiaries.

Mr. SWAN: With regard to the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule, are we to understand that it is in order to get the business cleared out of the way for taking the Trade Union Act, 1913 (Amendment) Bill?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think it would be convenient that I should deal with the business the Government propose to take on Tuesday when I make my Motion. That is the usual practice, and it will be convenient for me to make a general statement then instead of dealing with particular items by way of question and answer.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee D.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committtee,) to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 207.]

ALLOTMENTS BILL [Lords.]

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee,) to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 206.]

OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS BILL [Lords.]

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie, upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee,) to be taken into consideration upon Monday next.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill,

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,

Board of Education Scheme (Dews-bury Endowed Schools Foundation)

Confirmation Bill, without Amendment. Durham County Water Board Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to vary the trusts and powers of two several indentures, both dated the twenty-eighth day of April one thousand nine hundred and thirteen and executed on the marriage of Ronald D'Arcy Fife with Margaret Albert Rutson (now Margaret Albert Fife his wife)."[Fife Trust Estate Bill [Lord.]

FIFE TRUST ESTATE BILL [Lord.]

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[19TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICER AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1922–23.

CLASS II.

BOARD OF AGRICULTURE, SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £155,953, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, including Grants for Agricultural Education and Training, certain Grants-in-Aid, and certain Services arising out of the War."—[NOTE: £120,000 has been voted on account.]

4.0 P.M.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): The Committee will probably think that it is convenient, as on former occasions, that I should make a brief opening statement. if only for the reason that the Report of the Board deals with the period which ends on 31st December last year or seven months ago. The Committee, I think, will be chiefly concerned at this moment with the activities of the Board in regard to land settlement, and to that topic I propose to confine at any rate my opening statement. Consideration of the Board's tenth annual Report shows that their efforts on the land settlement side of their work have been attended with considerable success. The number of holders settled during the year 1921 was 722, and of these 438 'were ex-service men. That total of 722 was more than double the number settled in the preceding year, 1920, and, indeed, it considerably exceeded the number settled in any year since the establishment of the Board of Agriculture. The Committee may be interested to hear the figures relating to settlement from the year 1912—I will run over them quite rapidly, and I hope it will not bore the Committee—down to date. In 1912 the number of men settled was 37, 1913, 177:
1914, 459; 1915, 173; 1916, 87; 1917, 60; 1918, 36: 1919, 396; 1920, 317; 1921, 722; and, as I shall show to the Committee in a moment, the number settled in the first seven months of the present year is 527. Accordingly, I am right in saying that the number settled in 1921 was double the number settled during 1920, and exceeded by a considerable number any total in any year since the foundation of the Board of Agriculture. While that is so, I feel constrained to admit that the number settled during last year fell short of my expectations. That was largely because of the hesitation of applicants for small holdings to undertake the responsibilities of land owners. They had regard to the unsettled conditions of the market for stock and other produce. They feared the price of building would. involve them in prohibitive annual outlay in repayment of loans, and they anticipated a capital loss as the result of falling values. That was not unnatural.
There were, in truth, many difficulties which they had to face. There was, first of all, the difficulty with regard to sheep stocks. That is a subject which I have discussed with this Committee on more than one occasion. I am glad to say that that particular difficulty has been largely overcome. The Treasury, to whom the matter was fully explained, have consented to a considerable reduction in the price of stock to be charged to the holders, and in most cases the result has been that the holders have accepted those reduced prices. They have paid down one quarter of the cost of the stock, and they have undertaken to repay the balance, with interest, by instalments extending over a period of ten years. That particular concession, valuable though it is, involved a considerable additional drain on the Board's already limited funds: but there was really no alternative in the matter. Then, again, there is the building difficulty. That difficulty arises chiefly in the case of arable holdings. It is not surprising, with the prospect of a diminished return, owing to the fall in prices of agricultural produce, that some applicants were reluctant to undertake payment of rent in addition to building-loan annuity until a stabilised market allowed them to gauge the situation better. In a number of cases, where holdings have been already established. and buildings erected at the prices which
have prevailed during the past two years, the holders have represented to me that their burdens for rent and annuity are excessive, in spite of the fact that the annuity is calculated at a nominal rate of interest, namely, l¼ per cent. The holders about whom my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire (Major M. Wood) asked me this afternoon, numbering 178, whose rents have not yet been settled and who got possession at the peak of prices as it were, profess themselves to be unable to pay their rent and annuity charges. That is the reason why the rent has not been determined in these cases. I am at present in consultation with the Treasury on the matter, but I am not yet in a position to say whether it may be possible to offer any concession to that particular class of holders. I hope that it may be so.
Moreover, the call upon the Board, in common with all other Departments, to curtail its expenditure has also contributed to a reduction in the number of holders settled during 1921. The proposals had to be revised in order to meet the altered conditions. These changes, of course, can never be made without causing delay. The necessity for these changes could not always be impressed successfully upon the applicants, who in all cases had to be offered less desirable conditions than they had anticipated and than I should have desired to have afforded. Again, the limitation of the proposal to schemes for ex-service men—that is commented on on page 16 of the Board's report—undoubtedly has a certain effect in delaying progress. I do not need to elaborate it further at this stage than to say that, while it was necessary to adopt the policy under the financial conditions which prevailed and which rendered it necessary to apply the limited funds available to ex-service men in the first place, the consequences of the policy, as shown in the Report, must obviously he expected. In spite of these unavoidable difficulties which I have mentioned, I think I am justified in saying that land settlement has been speeded up and that the preliminary work of negotiation and of planning in previous years is now bearing fruit. For example, in the course of the present year 1922, as I indicated a few moments ago, 527 additional applicants have already been settled in the first seven months of the year in addition to 722 in the course
of the year 1921. Schemes which are in stages of progress, will, if they mature, as most of them are fully expected to do, provide for over 1,100 more applicants. Of these 1,100 it is anticipated that over 500 will be settled by Martinmas next, 11th November, or, at any rate, in time for cultivation in 1923.
Of course, I cannot and do not claim that the small holdings question in Scotland is now in a fair way towards settlement. The problem is far too large and complicated to admit of easy solution. Will the Committee just for a moment consider, first of all, the funds which are available, and, secondly, the applicants who desire to participate in the funds. The Board's funds come, as the Committee know, from two sources. First of all, there is the annual grant to the Agriculture (Scotland) Department of £200,000. That fund, however, the Committee will remember, bears the charge of many other services which are performed by the Board, and is only in part, therefore, available for the purposes of land settlement. In addition to that fund, there are the moneys which are borrowed from the Public Works Loan Commissioners under the provisions of the Act, 1919, which made £2,750,000 available for this purpose, and under the Act of 1921, which added £750,000 to that sum. I must, however, add that, following the report of the Geddes Committee, the total funds available under the Acts of 1919 and 1921 were limited to £3,000,000. Schemes which are in being or contemplated in the near future will absorb £2,300,000 of that sum, leaving a balance of £700,000 which is still unearmarked.
Let me turn for a moment to the applicants. The unsettled applicants for whom no provision is made in schemes which are in course of development number approximately 10,000, including 3,000 ex-service men. These numbers probably do not afford a reliable index of the real effective demand as it exists to-day. That consideration was borne in upon my mind very forcibly in the course of the last year, and, accordingly, upon my instructions, a very careful survey of these applications has been made by the Board of Agriculture, and, apart from un-notified withdrawals, deaths, and so on, experience has shown that, while on the one hand the demand only becomes articulate in many districts when a scheme is projected in the locality, on
the other hand a considerable proportion of the applicants already recorded must be described as ineffective, because the applicants have not fully realised the conditions attaching to small holdings tenure, and are not likely to undertake the obligations which fall upon them as holders, or because they insist on the provision of holdings in particular spots where it is impossible to provide for them. Keeping these considerations in mind, the Board reviewed the position as to unsettled ex-service men in the course of the year now gone by. They came to the conclusion, after a most meticulous survey, that from 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. of the applications might be written off as ineffective, leaving last year 2,000 ex-service applications, for which provision has yet to be made. Assume that there are these 2,000 ex-service men to settle. Assume that 1,000 more can be settled by the assistance of the fund at present at the disposal of the Board. Assume—I do not undertake it—that these 1,000 men can be settled in the course of 1923. The Committee will see that, apart from any new applications coming in—I do not anticipate that they will be numerous—ex-service men by the end of 1923 will, I hope, be settled upon the land in Scotland with the exception of about 1,000.
One is, therefore, coming within sight of a solution of this very pressing problem. You have to add, of course, the 7,000 unsettled applications from civilians. From these similar deductions must be made for ineffective applications. They will be 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. Keeping these applications in mind, there is a long road to travel, and much will be left to be done after the funds provided by the Act have been exhausted. The Board estimate that the unearmarked balance of £700,000 will provide for 1,000 or thereabouts. Of these some must, from the necessities of the case, be civilians, if only for the reason that in many parts of the Highlands the farms available and suitable are limited in number, and that permanent injury may be done by establishing new ex-service holders on a farm which offers the only natural outlet for the enlargement of holdings in adjacent and congested towns. The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Dr. Murray) will, no doubt, agree with that view. It is of interest to observe, and
it is a tribute to the activities of the Board, that, while under the Act of 1911 the statutory limit below which the Board cannot take compulsory action was £80 rent for 150 acres, under that limitation there are to-day only four farms left in the outer islands which are available and suitable for land settlement. All other farms have been appropriated.
I can deal only generally with the large question on which I have touched. From the Board Report, and from the further information which I have had supplied to me, it is evident that there has been progress made. I am not saying that the rate of progress can be maintained next year. When the Committee remembers the recommendations of the Geddes Committee, which it has been decided to adopt—recommendations which involve a considerable reduction of staff and of funds—the Committee will see that they must of necessity have an effect on the hate of settlement in the coming year. I am aware of the criticism which abounds with regard to land settlement. Some of that criticism is directed against the policy of land settlement and some directed against the Board. So far as the policy is concerned, it has been affirmed, and re-affirmed, in this House. So far as the Board is concerned, I might remind the Committee that one is dealing now with a reconstituted Board. which was brought into being since the last occasion upon which this matter was discussed here. I am sure that the view of the Committee, and the view of the public outside, will he that the new Board ought to have a chance of asserting its authority and of carrying out its work. Criticism, of course, there will be, and ought to be. It is the inalienable right of the average British citizen to criticise the Government or the weather or any Board which operates in Scotland or anywhere else.
So far as the Board is concerned, I say that neither the Board nor I have the smallest objection to constructive and informed criticism. But I cannot help feeling that much of the criticism that has been directed against the Board is neither constructive nor based on adequate knowledge of the facts. It is often fretful and vociferous, and even malignant. I recognise, of course, that the Board's operations must give rise to differing
opinions. I do not say that the interests of the parties with whom we have to deal, proprietors or farmers on the one hand and applicants on the other, are necessarily conflicting. But they often do not see eye to eye when directly affected by the Board's operations. The one insists that there is no need to disturb the existing condition of things and the other maintains that immediate change is essential. The Board's duty is to arbitrate on this question, and in arriving at their decision they have to take many considerations into account that cannot of necessity be present to the minds of the persons concerned in the operations. They must select the areas where their intervention can produce the best results, keeping in view the numbers that can be settled and the cost of the demands from applicants all over the country. It very often happens, on the one hand, that there is no reasonable alternative but to take a farm, although the proprietor and existing occupier would prefer to retain it. On the other hand, equally, no alternative but to refuse to deal with the demand from a particular area, because that area could be dealt with only by an expenditure of time, labour and money which would produce much better results elsewhere.
The Board have been repeatedly hampered in their operations by the failure of applicants in a particular locality to appreciate the wider aspect of the question. Perhaps it is unreasonable to expect that they could do so. They are concerned only with their immediate circumstances, and they insist on the provision of holdings under threat of forcible seizure, which in some cases has taken place. The Hebrides have caused me considerable anxiety in this connection. The position at the end of the year is referred to on page 21 of the Board's Report. I am glad to say that since that date it has greatly improved. The concessions which have been made by Lord Leverhulme have relieved the situation in Lewis. Settlements on the farms of Coll, Gress and Tolsta have been allotted. In North Uist the Balranald estate has been settled. The Raasay situation, to which reference is made on page 22 of the Board's Report, has now been cleared. The raiders have removed from the ground. The Board has completed an arrangement for the acquisition of the
whole estate. Part of it is now in occupation by holders, and the remainder will be settled at Martinmas, 11th November this year, and in the spring of next year. I am glad to say that the number of men now in unauthorised occupation of land in Scotland is very small indeed, and I am justified in saying that the situation has improved enormously since the end of last year.
The problem of land settlement is, in my view, one which palpitates with human interest. On it, I hope I may say without presumption, I have spent many hours of thought and work. The progress which has been made has been slow, but it has certainly been sure. One's aim has not yet been realised. What is the aim that one keeps in view? Surely to secure a large, contented and prosperous peasantry in Scotland; to secure for each man who desires to settle on the land that he should be enabled to do so; to secure that these men should neither be huddled in our great cities, nor hustled across the sea, unless such is their wish. We are not taking too parochial a view if we think of the impoverishment of our land as well as of the expansion of our Empire. It is a problem which cannot be assessed in pounds, shillings and pence. It is a debt which we owe to the ex-service men. We can never fully repay the debt which we owe to them, but we can at least make a payment on account, and in seeking to do so we shall also, I think, do a good day's work for our native land, for we shall erect a bulwark which will shelter us, should a new emergency arise. Therefore, I hope that this Committee and the public will not criticise the efforts of the Board loo harshly, but will rather co-operate with the Board and myself in compassing the end which, without distinction of party, we all have in mind.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
The right hon. Gentleman made some reference to criticisms which from time to time have been directed to his Department, particularly with reference to the Vote now before the Committee. He said that some of it was vociferous, indeed malignant, and he added that the Government, like the weather, were subject to criticisms of various kinds. The real distinction is that the weather, unfortunately, is not
subject to the will of the electorate. The Government is subject to the electorate, and therefore criticisms are rightly directed even if they may have a touch of the vociferous. I must say that I do not know where the touch of malignancy comes in. Certainly not on the Floor of this House or from any responsible critic I have heard of in connection with this particular Vote. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with the figures of what one might call land settlement in its wide sense. I mean settlement under the Small Holdings Act as well as under the Land Settlement Act. The Committee might do well to be reminded of the general figures, and then to deal with the hypothetical percentages which the right hon. Gentleman laid before the Committee. The general figures are these: The number of applications received was 18,162. Of these, 3,962 have been withdrawn, and 108 were rejected, making a total of 4,070. 2,464 were settled at the end of last year. That leaves a total not yet settled of 11,628. As I understood the Secretary for Scotland, after making various allowances he treated that total in round figures as 10,000.

Mr. MUNRO: So far as the ex-service applications were concerned, one had to write off 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. as non-effective applications, and the same applied to non-service applications.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's own figures from the Report, and I say there is a general total of 11,628. I will write off, if he likes, 2,000 odd and call it 9,500, and let it stand at that. At the most favourable rate of progress, how long will it take to settle these men on the land, not counting new applications, but those which have been in several years? At the rate indicated by the Secretary for Scotland, it will take at least 11 years from now to clear up these arrears, because that is what they are. I do not know how many came in last year, but let us say that it was 1,000, that leaves arrears to be dealt with falling very little short of 8,000 to 9,000 applications, assuming that the rate of progress which has been indicated is kept up, and in that I am assuming what the right hon. Gentleman himself does not claim to be probable,
because the present rate of progress is very difficult to keep up owing to financial and other difficulties. The charge which the ex-service men are entitled to make, and which the civilians who put in their applications years ago are also entitled to make, is that these cases were dealt with far more rapidly in the years that are gone. I discount very much the percentages upon which my right hon. Friend bases his limited hopes and expectations. He whittles down the ex-service figures by a series of deductions, and what it all comes to is that these men do not believe there is any chance of a substantial grant of their claims and their rights—their rights by the declarations of the Prime Minister and other Ministers. They have given up hope of a fulfilment of the promises made to them in any reasonable time to come. There is complaint about unrest. I am not astonished that there should be unrest: I marvel at the patience which has been shown. It is amazing. Let me read what the right hon. Gentleman's own report says in regard to the very case of Raasay with which ho has just been dealing. What were the facts there? I am reading from page 22 of the Report which is now before the Committee:
Descendants of crofters who were removed some generations ago from the Island of Raasay left Bona, erector houses on Raasay, and took possession of, and cultivated land there.
What did the Scottish Land Court, in 1920, say in regard to the state of Rona?
The Court have great difficulty in fixing fair rents for holdings such as are occupied by the applicants and which are situated on an island entirely unsuited for a settlement of smallholders. In the opinion of the Court the island is suitable for nothing else than as a grazing for a very limited number of sheep.

Mr. MUNRO: That case has been settled.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am very glad to hear this case is now settled, but at the moment my right hon. Friend was dealing with it I had my attention diverted by other matters. What happened there was typical of the delays of the Department. The order of events was this. Negotiations were opened in 1919. Then the Board hesitated to press matters on account of the state of the finances. Subsequently there was an inability to agree with the owners as to
the price. The next step was that the raid took place and a number of men were interdicted and imprisoned. Then the Board announced what they termed a general principle, and the general principle was that none of the raiders need look for any hope in view of their illegal action, and notice was given that those who took the law into their own hands should expect no consideration from the Board. What has been the result? The result of the raid is that the men are settled there.

Mr. MUNRO: indicated dissent.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I take leave to differ. It seems to me, that if the men had not taken those steps, they would still be agitating—

WHEREUPON THE GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK BOD being come with a Message, the Chairman left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;

The House went; and, having returned;

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Finance Act, 1922.
2. Infanticide Act, 1922.
3. Gaming Act, 1922.
4. Indian High Courts Act, 1922.
5. Treaties of Washington Act, 1922.
6. Summer Time Act, 1922.
7. Harbours, Docks, and Piers (Temporary Increase of Charges) Act, 1922.
8. Government of Northern Ireland (Loan Guarantee) Act, 1922.
9. British Empire Exhibition (Amendment) Act, 1922.
10. Anglo-Persian Oil Company (Payment of Calls) Act, 1922.
11. Canals (Continuance of Charging Powers) Act, 1922.
12. Bread Acts Amendment Act, 1922.
13. Sale of Tea Act, 1922.
14. Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1922.
15. Universities (Scotland) Act, 1922.
16. Pilotage Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1922.
2314
17. Pilotage Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Act, 1922.
18. Tramways Order Confirmation Act, 1922.
19. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1922.
20. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Act, 1922.
21. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 5) Act, 1922.
22. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 6) Act, 1922.
23. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Water) Act, 1922.
24. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Guildford Extension) Act, 1922.
25. Dumfries and Maxwelltown Waterworks Order Confirmation Act, 1922.
26. Girvan Water Order Confirmation Act, 1922.
27. Buckhaven and Leven Gas Commission Order Confirmation Act, 1922.
28. Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1922.
29. Aberdeen Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1922.
30. Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation Act, 1922.
31. Board of Education Scheme (Dewsbury Endowed Schools Foundation) Confirmation Act, 1922.
32. Staffordshire Potteries Waterworks Act, 1922.
33. Stretford and District Gas Board Act, 1922.
34. Worthing Corporation Act, 1922.
35. Croydon Gas Act, 1922.
36. Torquay Corporation (Electricity) Act, 1922.
37. Dartmouth Harbour Act, 1922.
38. Newcastle and Gateshead Waterworks Act, 1922.
39. Great Northern Railway Act, 1922.
40. Padiham Urban District Council Act, 1922.
41. London County Council (Money) Act, 1922.
42. London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1922.
43. London Electric and City and South London Railway Companies Act, 1922.
44. Swansea Corporation Act, 1922.
45. Windsor Royal Gas Act, 1922.
46. Halifax Corporation Act, 1922.
47. South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Company Act, 1922.

SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Question again proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £155,953, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board or Agriculture for Scotland, including Grants for Agricultural Education and Training, certain Grants-in-Aid, and certain Services arising out of the War.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I was regretting that the delay had resulted in breaches of the law, and stating that in my opinion the delay on the part of the authorities, however caused, was the real reason for the unrest and for the breaches of law which had taken place. The proper remedy, of course, is to meet the legitimate demands, and it cannot be stated, I think, with any justice that the legitimate demands of the civilians and of the ex-service men have been fairly met up till now. As long as that situation arises, there will always be the danger of these breaches of the law in all parts of the country, and far less, by comparison, in Scotland than in other parts of the United Kingdom. That was not the only case which which the Government had to deal. There was the case of Pitcalnie. I understand that a satisfactory settlement is in course of being effected or is effected—

Mr. MUNRO: Is effected.

5.0 P.M.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Then I should like to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will tell us what were the reasons for the reversal of the decision which had been made to the effect that this settlement should proceed. I would remind him that in May last a question was asked here, together with a series of supplementary questions, as to what the position was, and I think my right hon. Friend said that, in the exercise of the discretion vested in him, he had given a decision that the scheme should not proceed. I am interested to know on what reason that decision was based, as I think Mr. Speaker, during those supplementary questions, said the matter ought to be raised on the Estimates. I take the opportunity now of asking the Secretary
for Scotland to tell us what was the reason which actuated him in the decision which he then took and which led to another breach of the law, of an almost trivial kind, I suppose, as it was not followed, I understand, by the prosecution or imprisonment of any of those who took part in it. There are other cases, the position of which I should like the Minister to tell us at the present moment. I understand that the following schemes, amongst others, are still being held up, and that a very considerable amount of unrest is likely to arise, and is fermenting at the present moment — Glenmore, Balloch, Morayston (Dalcross), Ardersier, Berlem (Glenurquhart), Ardullie, Fanellan and Balmacaan. I rather think that the one at Fanellan is settled, though I am not quite certain. I should like to have some information as to how matters stand with regard to the schemes or proposals in those various cases. Turning from that for a moment, I want to comment, not unfavourably, on the amount which has been paid, or liabilities incurred, in the acquisition of land. I understand the total annual value of the estates by requisition is £40,291, and of this amount £739 odd represents the annual value of estates which were gifts. The area purchased is 213,610 acres. The annual value at the time of acquisition was £21,432. The price paid was £431,109. That, on a basis of 20 years' purchase, works out at about £428,500. I must say that that is not an unsatisfactory state of affairs with regard to purchase. With regard to area acquired, on the basis of a 30 years' rent charge, I understand they have acquired, in round figures, 59,000 acres, the annual value being £11,138, and the rent charge amounting to £13,600. Again, I think that is not an unsatisfactory price or arrangement to have arrived at. That also applies to land where leased for a term of 250 years. There, again, the rent which is actually paid is in close approximation to the value of the land acquired.
I want to ask a question as to the amount of land feud. The area of the land feud is 7,733 acres. The annual value at the time of acquisition is £5,000 in round figures. Feu duties amount to £67,725. The larger proportion of that increase is due to Gretna. I want to know what are the particulars which have
caused that very considerable difference between the annual value at the time of acquisition and the amount of feu duties to be paid. No doubt there are some sufficient reasons for that, and I should like to have them. I desire again to refer to the complaints of the ex-service men and civilians, and to point to this remarkable fact, as disclosed by the annual report itself, that out of 6,114 applicants, round about 800 or 900 only have been granted the land for which they sought. With regard to those that were not ex-service men, there were 6,645, and only 720, or thereabouts, have received the land for which they asked. Granting that there has been a satisfactory increase—and any increase is satisfactory—in the rate of settlement, the whole position is still thoroughly unsatisfactory, and if it is to be grappled with efficiently, if you are to get a steady, quiet public mind in this matter, instead of unrest, suspicion and hostility, the question will have to be grappled with much more decisively than at the present moment. It is said that we have not got the money. That may be so, if you are going to deal with this matter simply on the ground of economy. But we are spending hundreds of thousands of pounds in other parts of our Empire. It is no use telling them there is no money for this. That does not give you the social peace for which you ask, because they know, as well as we know, what huge sums are spent which, as I think, and I believe the majority of them think, are wholly unnecessary and extravagant. This is a matter which, on the grounds of solid investment and of social peace, must be dealt with, and is quite as important as spending round about £1,500,000 or £2,000,000 for ammunition for big guns, which we decided this week in Committee of the House. Presumably that was a piece of national urgency. I put this case of the settlement of these men on the land on the same grounds of national urgency, and that is the way it will have to be met.

Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman does not suggest that the taxpayers of this country should find the money?

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am dealing with things as we find them, and it is an entire mistake to suppose that the Scottish nation is not taxed equally with
citizens south of the Border. They bear their full share. Some people say they bear more than their full share, but I say their full share, and they are as much entitled to consideration in such a matter as this as any part of the British Empire. They have rendered equal service, and even service which might be more favourably described, to the Empire, and should be equally well treated. Let me read to the Committee, as an example of what is in these men's minds, and which ought to be answered by swift and generous action on the part of the Government, a message from a man who led raiders. This is what he said after they had taken their illegal action:
We trust the people of Scotland will not misjudge us for what we have done. While fighting, we were promised homes in our native land, and we saw posters showing the ideal homes for which we should fight. We believed those promises were made in all sincerity. When we returned, we asked for only a small piece of land in our beloved Ross-shire, and waited. At last, after years of weary waiting, we thought that we were to be allowed to build houses, but again the cup was ruthlessly thrust from our lips.
Whether the language can be described as exaggerated or not—I do not think it can—what the Government have to reckon with is the conviction in the minds of thousands of really reputable citizens, men who are, as everyone who knows the character of these men will say, law-abiding, that they are driven to take illegal measures by what seems to them to be the strongest provocation, and action not dictated solely by personal or selfish reasons, but, as representative men, they felt they were acting, rightly or wrongly, not only for themselves but for others. That is a very serious position to arise amongst law-abiding communities. That feeling of unrest will not be satisfied by hypothetical deductions which the Secretary for Scotland has given us.

Mr. MUNRO: They are not hypothetical.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I think they are. Here is a genuine case based upon specific Government promises, and action is delayed during a time of apparent plenty, and now, of course, when the cold facts of the situation have driven the guardians of the public purse to it, the amount is cut down. Without going into more details, that is the indictment of policy which we make against those who act in
this matter, and it is for that reason that I very much regret I feel bound to move a reduction of the Vote.

Mr. KIDD: I want at once to come to the suggestion I have in view, and that is that my right hon. Friend should appoint a Commission of Experts to consider the operations of the Board; how far those operations have been successful, and, if not successful, why not: what has been the cost of the policy pursued at the present time; and what the cost is likely to be. I hope he will give sympathetic consideration to this proposal of mine, especially when I have given the reasons for putting it forward. The real source of this proposal is the Northern Counties of Scotland—the Counties of Caithness, Sutherland and Ross and Cromarty. The right hon. Gentleman is not likely to suggest that there is any lack of sympathy with his efforts in those counties, nor will he suggest that those counties, on the subject of agriculture and land settlement, are likely to toe lacking in intelligence. The feeling of these counties was so great that in September of last year a conference was held at Dingwall—a place well known to the right hon. Gentleman —of the leading agriculturists of these counties. The result was a resolution in the direction in which I have indicated, and of the request I have made. Following upon this conference at Dingwall, the Board of Agriculture itself felt compelled to call a meeting of the parties interested at Edinburgh, I think, on the 29th June this year. At that meeting there was a very good representation of the various interests. The Board of Agriculture itself was represented; so was the National Farmers' Union, the Northern Agricultural Committees, and the Scottish Land and Property Federation. At that conference in Edinburgh these charges were brought: Firstly, the Board's neglect by retaining too long the land in their own hands and not passing it on timeously to the real settlers; secondly, the serious reduction of valuable stock which has taken place during the Board's occupation: thirdly, there was the charge— and a very serious charge—of bad cultivation; fourthly, delay and lack of business methods—as animadverted upon by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean)—though I [...] not want to follow him in suggesting
that that delay is an excuse for the serious situation which took place in the Islands. That was also one of the points made at that meeting to which I have referred. Fifthly, there was the uneconomic holdings which have been created, and the Board's pursuit of their own line, despite the facts staring them in the face; and, sixthly, the difficulties which had arisen with the new tenants through failure to acquaint them at the start with what the settlement would mean to them in the way of future burdens, thus creating endless discontent.
I have many instances under each one of these heads of indictment, but I do not want to weary the House, the more so because many other hon. Members desire to speak. I wish to give only one illustration in each case. Take the first, that of the retention of land by the Board. I will not mention, unless the right hon. Gentleman desires, the names of the farms—though I am ready to do so—but in one case the land was retained for 18 months, in another case for two years, and in a third case for four years. In regard to the reduction of stock, in one case—I can give the name here, the Stempster Farm—the sheep were largely reduced from something like 600 to 200, and even the latter were brought in to be fed not on the farm, they were fed on turnips carted from Forss Mains, a distance of three miles. In regard to bad cultivation—which is a more serious charge to bring, and which reflects very seriously on the Board as to their selection of local managers—in the case of Stempster, no turnips were put down in 1921, and 35 acres were fallow. The farmyard manure for this crop was carted on to the ground, but in February last it was still lying there wasting, no attempt having been made to save it by putting a thick layer of earth on it Exposure to the elements had rendered it practically useless.
In the case of Forss Mains Farm, 32 acres of this were left uncultivated last year although the farmyard manure was actually carted on to the ground. There are a great many other cases of bad cultivation, details of which I am prepared to supply to the right hon. Gentleman. I want to remark upon the uneconomic policy pursued by the Board. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) has pointed
out that land settlement is not a matter exclusively of profit and loss. The Scottish Secretary himself has reminded us that, in order to create these settlements and plant these people on the land, the Board were prepared to advance the money for the buildings and so on at the totally uneconomic return of 1¼ per cent. It is not open to us to discuss policy at all on this Vote. I accept the policy for the moment, and the supply of land even at the cost of the State. But surely the Board of Agriculture ought to discover whether the policy can really be pursued in the future. You may give the man land for nothing and you may put up his buildings, you may charge him nothing, but the return may be bad. You may supply him with official stock, and yet the conditions may render it utterly absurd to attempt the working of that land. It may be an intrinsically uneconomic and unsound proposition.
What I suggest this Commission would probably discover would be not only whether the facts I have given in regard to bad management were right, not only would we discover some remedy for that bad management, but we would discover what expenditure we can indulge in in this idea of settling people under uneconomic conditions. I know the sentiment which comes to the assistance of the men who have fought for us is one that will obtain the support of the people in Scotland, certainly, with, enthusiasm; but the people of Scotland, generously inclined as they are, very properly, in regard to such recipients, are still guided by some degree of prudence. They find here a class selected for treatment which cannot be applied to the industrial world. It is a kind of treatment that you cannot spread over every section, and, therefore, when you apply this particular treatment to a particular section of the community, the nation, as a whole, is entitled to know what it is going to cost. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, to agree with me that the questions which I ask should be carefully met, and the exact extent of the obligations undertaken stated. The Scottish Secretary will tell me—if I am rightly informed— that there is no end of discontent in regard to these settlements. He has already told us that something like 200 of the 700 have failed to put stock on the land. Apart from that, I think
others have left the settlements. Certainly, the discovery of what their obligations would be in the future has occasioned, in a very large measure, the abandonment of as many applications as have been abandoned. Surely, I have made out a sufficiently prima facie case against the Board to justify my pressing my statement that a more or less independent commission of inquiry should be set up, having all interests in agriculture represented. On that Commission I would recommend there should be representatives of the Farmers' Union, of the men who have stayed, of the men who have applied and dropped their applications, of the men who had settled, and who have left; and, in addition to that, I would hope that the land interest might have representation with the Board of Agriculture itself.
In conclusion, I want to say that 1 do not put this proposal forward with any desire to hamper or embarrass the Board of Agriculture. I am well aware that for any Board to be called upon to make a decent show in working what was an intrinsically uneconomic scheme, however desirable and worthy it may be, at such a time when money is scarce, and when everybody with the smallest intelligence or prescience about the future looks doubtful, is a task of enormous difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman asked this House not to crab but to co-operate. I submit one of the best means by which one can prove to all parties the value of co-operation is to appoint a Commission such as I have suggested, intelligently representing such interests as I have named. The Board ought not to be ashamed of this. It is not put for their annoyance. I do, therefore, hope my right hon. Friend, when he comes to reply, will be able to give me some assurance that the Commission I have asked for will be appointed, and that the different grievances I have submitted in detail will be fully considered.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I have no claim to speak for the agriculturists of Scotland. What I trust to do this afternoon, very briefly, is to call attention to questions that might be raised by any Member who has no experience of agricultural conditions. The Secretary for Scotland, in introducing his statement, referred to the fact that there was represented in these Estimates a very large measure of
economy. I think it is important that at the present time the Scottish people should really understand the drastic cut involved in the amount for the Board of Agriculture in Scotland for the coming year. The actual figures are that in 1921–22 the net total for the ordinary services of this Board were £435,000. For 1922–23, the present financial year, that is cut down to practically £271,000. A very large part of the reduction in found under Sub-head H, where last year in respect to the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund Grants-in-Aid we had a provision of £215,000, while on this occasion we are cut down to £128,000. On referring to the explanatory matter relating to this item it appears that last year under Sub-head H for Land Settlement and Improvement of Congested Districts in the Highlands and Islands we had £185,000 as against only £60,000 for the present financial period. We have very often indicated that we are very strongly in favour of economy, but I do ask Scottish Members to face this frank question as to whether under the existing conditions of land settlement in Scotland we are getting fair treatment. As a matter of fact, a wise public expenditure on land settlement would be, I think, by common consent, a very valuable investment. Personally, I hope that after these reductions have been made there will still be provision left for a considerable number of ex-service men and civilians in Scotland, who are undoubtedly awaiting opportunities for land settlement at the present time. In that connection there are two points I wish to ask the Secretary for Scotland to notice in his reply. In the crowded city districts which many of us represent we come into contact with considerable numbers of ex-service men and civilians who desire small holdings, or who desire to be otherwise settled on the land. Practically all Scottish Members come into contact with the Board of Agriculture, and we are all impressed by the great delay which takes place, but we are even more impressed by the fact that a considerable proportion of ex-service men and others are steadily losing heart, and that appears to me to be the most tragic feature of the present situation. Is it unreasonable to suggest that instead of allowing despair to affect these ex-service men and civilians, something might be
done, even if considerable delay is inevitable in the direction of settling them on the land, by way of training them for the occupation which they hope they will ultimately be able to follow?
That raises a very difficult and a very serious question, because a considerable percentage of these men are drifting to other callings, very often of a casual character, for which they are singularly ill-fitted, and they would be much better off if they were occupied on the land. They see no prospects of getting a holding in a reasonable time, and they are withdrawing their applications and going to other pursuits. It has always seemed to me that it might possibly be one of the healthiest developments of the work of the Board of Agriculture and the Ministry of Labour to try and train these men in agricultural pursuits. I press that point again this afternoon as a consideration which should be borne in mind.
The only other point I am going to put is that having regard to the experience of men who have been already settled on the soil it is perfectly clear that we are not likely to get the best results until we proceed much more largely on a co-operative basis. A very great deal has been done in other countries in the direction of agricultural organisation by the joint use of machinery and agricultural implements, and the rest of it. I am aware that when we consider a problem of that kind in Scotland a very clear distinction must be drawn between the Highlands and the Lowland districts. It may be more difficult in the Highlands to apply these principles of agricultural organisation, but it should be very much easier in the Lowlands where a considerable percentage of our ex-soldier and civilian applicants might be settled. I think it is not untrue to say as regards Scottish agriculture that the investigations which have been made show that in Scotland this kind of agricultural organisation is very limited, and has only been applied to a comparatively small extent. I should like to see far more investigation and a much larger application of this principle. I am satisfied that we are not likely to get the best results for a large number of ex-service men and civilians unless that principle is applied. In the long run it would make for a certain economy in the use of our resources These are the only two considerations which I am pressing now,
and they have been put to me by people interested in the welfare of the ex-service men. For these reasons I hope we shall have some information on these points from the Secretary of Scotland.

Colonel Sir A. SPROT: The Secretary for Scotland has invited criticism, and I propose to offer a few words of criticism upon what he has told us, but it will not be at all from an unfriendly point of view in regard to the subject with which he has been dealing. We all have our opinion on this small holdings question, and I think we ought to examine the question with an open mind. It is no use telling people that you are against small holdings as is often done on my side of politics and those connected with land. It is all a matter of whether the thing is economically sound or not. If it had been economically sound small holdings would have existed all over the country by natural means, and they would not have required to be brought into existence by artificial means.
Before I come to the example which I propose to give from my own constituency, for I intend to deal with the aspect of the question in the Lowlands alone because I know nothing about the Highlands, I wish to say that I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has told us that the progress of the settlement of ex-service men on the land has been, unfortunately, very slow. The settlement of these men on the land was a pledge we all gave at the last election, and that is a pledge which we meant, quite frankly, to carry out. Up to the end of last year only some 900 of these men had been settled in that way, and, making allowance for what has been done since the 1st of January which has brought the total up to about 1,000, that is a very small result from all the efforts which have been made in that direction.
The Secretary for Scotland has pointed out the difficulties which stood in the way and he used the phrase "non-effective applications" for small holdings. I can quite believe that, in a great many cases, that phrase is applicable. This point is dealt with in the Report in which we are told that, after small holdings had been prepared and got ready for occupation, some of these men, when they were shown the small holdings and asked to undertake the job, were unwilling to come for-
ward, or possibly they had not sufficient capital, or they were unwilling to face the responsibilities which the position entailed upon them. I should say that that would be true of a great many cases amongst those who put their names down as applicants for small holdings. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman so far as that goes, but there are other reasons why progress has been very slow. The operations of the department of a bureaucracy are necessarily slow, because there must be correspondence and the sending down of inspectors who have to report to headquarters. Then you have to wait for a decision upon every small matter, with the result that progress under a bureaucracy is necessarily always slow. The mistake is probably due to the fact that the Department set out to do this thing on its own instead of enlisting the sympathies and inviting the co-operation of all those previously connected with the land. They should have enlisted the sympathy and co-operation of landowners and farmers of Scotland, and if they had done that they would have been much more successful, and progress would have been much more rapid in carrying out what they proposed to do.
Another reason why they have been so slow in producing any results is that they have been too ambitious in their aims. I believe that in England the small holdings movement for fostering and settling ex-service men on the land has gone on much faster than in Scotland, because a different view has been taken of what a small holding should be. They take a man living in a house in a town, and they give him a piece of land within easy reach of his home, and they do not spend any money equipping it. They merely divide up a certain tract of land and give it to the people who have their dwellings elsewhere, and they call that a small holding. In Scotland we have taken a different and, in my opinion, a much too ambitious view, because they provide a separate house for each applicant, and we are required to invest a great deal more money in the business; consequently it has taken a great deal longer to put the scheme into operation. I intend to illustrate this point by some figures which were given to me in answer to a question with regard to an estate in my own constituency in the County of Fife which was bought by the Scottish
Board of Agriculture, and is now in process of being turned into a number of small holdings. I am very familiar with the ground, and I know that before this was done it was the property of a certain gentleman belonging to a well-known Scottish family, and there were three farms on the property. There was a landowner at the head, there were also three farmers, and there were a certain number of cottages for the ploughmen, I think about half a dozen on each farm.
What was the position of affairs under those circumstances? All the repairs necessary to the buildings, the fences and the cottages were done by the landowner, who drew a rental perhaps amounting to about £1,500 a year. He paid Income Tax and local rates, and the farmers did the same, and the rest of the taxpayers of the country had nothing whatever to pay. Food was produced on this estate in very large quantities, and one of these farms produced exceptionally fine crops. That was the position before. Sixty-four people, allowing four individuals to a family, were maintained in that way, and the Government and the taxpayer paid nothing.
What has happened since? The Board of Agriculture stepped in and bought that property for £29,000. It is turning it into 30 small holdings, and spending on equipment an estimated sum of £50,695; in all, it is going to cost the country £79,695, or, in round figures, £80,000. That is all being done for 30 smallholders, and if the Government had invested the same amount in War stock it would have produced £4,000 a year, quite sufficient to give every one of these ex-service men a comfortable annuity for the rest of his life, and there would be the capital available for their successors. They have spent this large sum in turning this estate into small holdings and equipping them. The old buildings have, of course, been utilised. Cottages have been joined together and adapted, but in other cases new-houses have been built for the smallholders, and small steadings have been added to the three which previously existed. They are charging each smallholder £1 per acre for the use of the land and extra for the extra equipment which has been put on it. They are spending about £2,000 on each of them, and are charging l¼ per cent. interest on the outlay on the holding. The effect of that is,
generally speaking, that the smallholders have to pay about double the rent which is paid by farmers on adjoining property. They have to pay about £2 per acre instead of one.
They are not all of them doing very well. We know that agriculture has had difficulties to face in the past year or two, and even those who have been in the business all their lives, and are well established in it, have suffered from the great fall in prices which has taken place. These people are struggling along. In some cases I believe they will do very well. I notice that a pair of them—brothers—who each had 50 acres, and who had been ploughmen before they 'went into the Army, appear to be likely to do well with their 100 acres, but, as for the rest, some of them certainly will not pull through, and in the case of others it is rather doubtful. I am told that the Scottish organisation for co-operation has been in touch with these people with a view to trying to help them to cooperate with each other, which is, of course, a way out of the difficulty. But they have reported that these men have to pay so much for rent and for interest on the equipment that they are unable to put down any money for manures or feeding stuffs or for anything required for the improvement and stocking of their holdings.
We have placed these people in that position. We have made that change in the organisation of this little bit of the country. I suppose there is no more food produced on that land than formerly. I shall be told, perhaps, that a larger number of people have been settled on it. Allowing, again, four to the family, the increased number of people employed on this particular property as a result of this enormous outlay of nearly £80,000 is 56. I submit that the whole thing is unsound, and that we must invent some other means of arriving at the end we have in view. Whatever system is ultimately adopted must be different from this. When you have embarked on a system which is uneconomical it cannot possibly meet with success. It is hard on the country, on the taxpayers who have to pay, and on the smallholders themselves if they, through no fault of their own, are unable to make a living out of it. For that reason I shall be prepared to support the proposal of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd) that
the Board of Agriculture should be invited to call into its councils those bodies to which he referred in order that suggestions should be made which will better enable the attainment of the excellent object we all have in view in the most economical way.

Dr. MURRAY: The speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Eastern Fife (Sir A. Sprot) reminds me of the title of a lecture I once listened to from the late Duke of Argyll on "Neglected Factors in Political Economy," in which was pointed out certain factors never discussed in the books as economic factors. My hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken has been dealing with political economy in connection with smallholdings, but he has neglected to point out many factors which ought to be taken into consideration but which cannot be expressed in pounds, shillings and pence. Although the proposal made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd) is not directed against smallholdings, I think I am entitled to say it is calculated to throw a cold wave on the enthusiasm which should be associated with that movement. The idea has come from an element in the country which has not been favourable to the creation of smallholdings in the past. There has been a good deal of criticism directed against the Board of Agriculture from all sides of the House, but I do not think my right hon. Friend can charge me with at any time indulging in malignant criticism. The only malignity in the criticisms I have noticed in connection with this matter came from the right hon. Gentleman's own side of the House, and nothing could have been more malignant than the vendetta directed against the late Chairman of the Board.
The question of small holdings has been sufficiently dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean). On the whole, I agree with him. I make no charge against the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Government. My charge is against the Government as a whole. It is that they have made so many promises to agriculture and have not been sufficiently active to secure their fulfilment, and have also been niggardly with regard to money. That latter point, however, may be due to Treasury intervention. At the back of our criticism is the complaint that the
Government have not fulfilled as fair a proportion of the promises they have made as we had a right to expect. I pass from the consideration of the general question of small holdings in Scotland to my own part of the country. I am inclined to be less critical of the Board of Agriculture in that regard. I have had occasion to regret their delay in the settlement of ex-service men in various portions of my own constituency, but I must admit that more progress has been made in this outlying part of the United Kingdom than in perhaps any other constituency in Scotland. The deduction I might draw from that would not be perhaps in accord with my natural modesty. But whatever has been the cause, I think it is largely due to the fact that one official of the Board of Agriculture is thoroughly well acquainted with my constituency, and that has expedited matters very considerably.
6.0 P.M.
Reference has been made to raids on the land in the Hebrides. Men have been put in prison in connection with them, and on that subject I have expressed my opinion at various times. But I must give the right hon. Gentleman credit for the way in which, in spite of the difficulties created by these raids, he has sought to solve the problem without penalising the people in any sort of way for the offences which have been committed. My right hon. Friend has been very generous in his treatment of the men. I should like to see more progress made with regard to applications for land in North and South Uist—these settlements, referred to in the Report of the Board of Agriculture, which so far have not been effected. THERE have been expressions—not, I think, very serious—of impatience on the part of the ex-service men who have been awaiting the decision of the Board of Agriculture. I should like to hear that those eases in which negotiations have been going on are getting near completion, and when that happens I do not think that I shall be able, on any other occasion when I am here, to reproach my right hon. Friend with neglecting the question of land setlement in the Hebrides.
There is one point I should like to make before leaving this subject, and that is with regard to the housing of these smallholders on their new holdings. I was medical officer of health for the
Island of Lewis for many years, and one of the great difficulties that I found was in regard to housing Consumption is rife there, and one of the gravest charges that I can make against the Board of Agriculture is that some 15 years ago, when a village settlement was established, they allowed the men to go on and erect houses of the same character that we had been condemning year after year as conducive to the prevalence of tuberculosis, which is such a terrible scourge in that island. The Board of Agriculture allowed these men to build what were supposed to be temporary houses, and there they have remained to this day. From that point of view the Board of Agriculture have helped to retard the progress of housing in those parts. I know, on the other hand, that the Board have done a good deal to help housing, and I want to be fair to them, but I think it is a pity that, in the case of these new holdings, they did not in some way or other help the men more liberally in the matter of house building. In the Report it is pointed out that the settlement of men on the land in the Highlands is cheaper than in any other part of the country, because, as the Report says, the practice is for the crofters to build their own houses. I would urge that more attention should be paid to that matter. From some of these settlements I have received urgent representations, asking me to get the Board of Agriculture to help them with regard to the character of the housing. They say that they cannot get enough help from the Board to enable them to build decent houses in which to live. The housing problem on these settlements is just as important as that on the land itself, and I would urge of the Board of Agriculture, through the right hon. Gentleman, to see if they cannot in these cases give more help in regard to it.
There is another matter which comes within the ambit of the Board of Agriculture, and that is the assistance given in these outlying parts in getting roads constructed. The means of transport on land as well as on sea are very far behind the requirements of present-day civilisation in those parts, and the Board of Agriculture, as inheritors of the functions of the old congested districts board, have had funds to help those parts where the
valuation is very low and they cannot get sufficient money to construct roads from time to time. Of course, I recognise the financial stringency at the present time, and I would again throw a rose at the feet of the right hon. Gentleman and thank him for the help which, through the Board of Agriculture, he has given us during this last year in connection with unemployment in those parts, by way of grants for the construction of roads. I am not going to tell him of the necessity for those roads, because he knows it already, but the fishing there has been a tremendous failure for a number of years past, and this year in particular, and there are thousands of men and women out of work. The economic conditions in Lewis at the present time are worse than ever they have been in the memory of living man.
Therefore, I desire to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity for continuing these operations in connection with roads at the present time, in order to give employment to the men in those parts. They have no work to go to. Thousands used to be employed in the fishing in various parts of Scotland, but now only a small fraction of them can get employment, and, therefore, they must remain at home. They cannot live upon their crofts, which are only three or four acres in extent, and furnish only a small portion of their living. Therefore, industrial work is absolutely necessary for them. It is not forthcoming, and the only thing, unfortunately, that they can rely upon at the present time is relief works. These, according to present arrangements, have to stop on the 31st of this month. I know they were extended beyond the original time, but I would appeal to my right hon. Friend to have them continued all through the year. The roads are necessary for one thing, and the distress is still very great. Unfortunately, there is no industry there.
I understand, from an answer which I received from the Secretary for Scotland this afternoon, that an inquiry is proceeding at the present time with a view to deciding whether these relief works shall be continued for some time longer or not. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, or whatever officials are concerned, to inquire, not only in Lewis, but in Harris and Uist, where patches of distress will be found, due to unemployment, which could be immediately
relieved by road construction works. There is no part of the country where relief works are simpler. Every man is willing to turn his hand to work on the roads. We are not so fastidious as I have discovered people to be in London and in some other parts where roads are being made. Every man is willing to turn his hand to build a road or construct a pier—and I hope that this latter kind of activity will be added to the list of construction works. Therefore, it is a very simple matter to relieve distress. They do not want charity, hut want to work for whatever money they can get. In this connection, may I crave the indulgence of the House for a moment on a matter that excites a good deal of public interest—namely, the matter of Lord Leverhulme's development works in Lewis, which, as probably most Members of the House know, have for scome time been stopped. We all hoped that they were going to provide a good deal of work for the people of Lewis, and undoubtedly they would have been of great use, but they have come to a dead stop. I should not bring this matter before the House were it not for the fact that a great number of people take special interest in these works, and Lord Leverhulme's speeches get publicity all over the country. I should like to refer to a speech which he made in Stornoway on Wednesday of last week, in which he makes certain charges against me, and, as the Parliamentary representative for the place, I ought to take notice of it. I must say that he criticises me in good company, because he begins by criticising my right hon. Friend, of whom he says:
Mr. Munro thought these schemes should not be adopted, and from him he had received no support.
However, he tempered the wind to the shorn lamb in the case of my right hon. Friend, and said that.
He wished to give all credit to Mr. Munro, hut he had hoped that he would receive some encouragement from the local Member of Parliament, yet he had no letter nor had he read of any speech in support of his plans,
and more to the same effect. That statement is certainly not correct. I know quite well why Lord Leverhulme made it, and that, if I would say nothing else but ditto to everything he said, he would give me every credit. I would
point out, however, that there has been no occasion on which I have referred to these matters in this House when I did not give Lord Leverhulme credit for his work and praise his plans. The only difference between us was, that I maintain that the few ex-service men—and they were simply a handful—who wanted small holdings, should get them because they were promised to them. I was pledged to the very lips to promote these small holdings and to see that these men got them when they came back from the War, and in doing so I thought I was carrying out the policy which Lord Leverhulme submitted for the adoption of the country at the great Coalition meeting on the eve of the General Election in November, 1918. The policy of providing small holdings for ex-service men was submitted by a Member of the House of Commons and seconded by Lord Leverhulme. He was then the proprietor of the Island of Lewis, and he made no exception, so far as I can see, with regard to his own estate. In order to show that, with that reservation as to small holdings, I am in agreement with him, I may, perhaps, be allowed to read this extract from some remarks I made in this Chamber on the 4th August, 1920;
I have always given credit to Lord Leverhulme, in this House and outside, for having the very best motives in his policy. It is a very great disaster that the works which he has set in motion there should be stopped. My own view all along has been that there is no reason why the development of small holdings and the development of Lord Leverhulme's works should clash in any way, and I have never been able to find any responsible man who has been able to discover any reason why they should necessarily clash. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend"—
that is to say, the Secretary for Scotland, who intended to go there at that time in order to try and arrange matters as between the raiders and Lord Leverhulme, but was prevented from going, owing to unfortunate circumstances in which we all sympathised with him—
will be successful in evolving some scheme which will be satisfactory to those men who have been promised the land, and also to Lord Leverhulme, who will be able to go on with his work. Small holdings are not sufficient for the Western Islands. There must also be development of industry. In very few instances are the smallholders or crofters dependent entirely on the crofts for their living. In most cases they are also in the fishing industry. When the right hon. Gentleman sees the situation for himself, I
trust that, after consultation with men on the spot and with Lord Leverhulme, he will bring out of the confusion a scheme satisfactory to all concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th August, 1920; col. 2484, Vol. 132.]
I also spoke on the 4th August, 1919, in even more enthusiastic support of Lord Leverhulme's scheme, although I will not trouble the House with a quotation. In pursuance of what I said, I went down to Stornoway and stayed there for some weeks waiting for the Secretary for Scotland, but, unfortunately, he was not able to come. The Lord Advocate came, and I claim that I did my very best to get the raiders there into a frame of mind that made it easy for the Lord Advocate to come to an arrangement with them which was also satisfactory to Lord Leverhulme, and when the history of that little transaction comes to be known I have no fear of any man being able to say I did anything to stop or retard Lord Leverhulme's scheme. As a matter of fact, although Lord Leverhulme is trying to find a scapegoat for the failure of his schemes, he told us in a speech at the same place last year frankly that he stopped them because the economic conditions were so difficult that it would not pay to go on with them. It is not true to say that the people of Lewis did not fulfil their part of the bargain. This has been published throughout the Press in Scotland to show that Lord Leverhulme sometimes blames the raiders for stopping those schemes; but in a speech at Stornoway, reported in the "Glasgow Herald" of 10th February, 1920, he said:
He felt it would be a gross act of injustice on his part to penalise one district because the men of another district chose to pursue a short-sighted policy. He proposed, therefore, to concentrate on Stornoway and Harris. He would not give up any scheme he had intended for Stornoway unless, of course, there was raiding on the farms in the neighbourhood of Stornoway.
There has never been any raiding on the farms in the neighbourhood of Stornoway, and, so far as that is concerned, the people of Stornoway and Lewis have fulfilled their part of the bargain. If the raiders are blamed, he must submit to his own judgment that it would be an act of gross injustice to punish one set of people for the acts of another. I am sorry to inflict that more or less personal matter upon the Committee, but it has found publicity not only through the local Press but the daily papers in Scotland,
and it would seem a very serious thing for the locality to be against schemes which were in the permanent interest of the community. I do not think hon. Members, at any rate, will charge me—in fact, I am afraid sometimes it is regarded as a joke—with neglecting the interests of that part of the world.

Mr. GARDINER: I should like to refer to one or two matters which have been brought into the discussion. First of all, may I make a short reference to the proposal of a Commission to assist the Board of Agriculture in reference to the settlement of smallholders. This is a novel proposal, and some of us have not had an opportunity of considering fully the result, but there may be many things to be said in favour of it. The Board of Agriculture might not be any the worse for such a Commission. Its administration has been celled in question by many people without knowledge, and statements have been made, grossly inaccurate, condemning the policy of the Board, and possibly full inquiry by a Commission into all the facts will be of considerable benefit to smallholders, to agriculture generally, and to the Board itself. A very well-known gentleman wrote me very lately about one smallholder who had been very badly used by the Board, and pointed out that promises had been broken and pledges unfulfilled, and he made many other such statements. At last I asked him to write me specifying what the promises and pledges were, and I would make a point of having the subject thoroughly investigated. The letter was written several weeks ago. His letters came very freely prior to that time, but since then I have heard nothing on the subject.
I am afraid in many cases people speak about some of the actions of the Board without accurate knowledge. I am not here to defend the Board. Defence, if defence is needed, is in far abler hands. We all like in Scotland that all parties should get fair play. The Board undoubtedly has made mistakes. and the fact that the whole of the work that is being done is uneconomic adds to the difftcultties of the Board and of everyone who is interested in the settlement of smallholders on the land, whether it be in the Highlands or the Lowlands. Everyone knows the deep interest the hon. Member (Dr. Murray) has in the subject, especially in reference to his own
constituency. He pleaded with the Secretary for Scotland to increase the giant for the purpose. The unfortunate thing is that the Treasury is depleted, and we all cry collectively for economy, but sometimes we forget when it is a personal matter, and we like to ask for as large a sum as possible for some subject which has our sympathy. Not only is the settlement of smallholders uneconomic at present, and will possibly ever be, but agriculture altogether in Scotland and elsewhere is in the same condition. While smallholders are struggling with difficulties and finding them too great, their fellow agriculturists on the larger farms in the immediate neighbourhood are in the same condition, and bad they not a reserve of capital they would end in bankruptcy in a very short time.
An hon. Member suggested that the Government had been far too profuse in their promises to ex-service men. I should like to ask the Committee if they think promises were made too profusely for the services rendered. When the country was served so magnificently by those splendid specimens who went from all the parts of the Kingdom surely we were entitled to do something for them when they returned, and if the problem is uneconomic, we are getting some return. The hon. Baronet (Colonel Sir A. Sprot) suggested the average number in a family as four, but I think if statistics are examined closely you will find if you deal with smallholders and their families, you will have to multiply the number by about two in order to get an accurate figure, and the boys and girls reared on these smallholdings as a rule prove the finest of our manhood and womanhood and are one of the greatest assets this or any-other country could possess. It is most unfortunate that these settlements are being made at a time when agricultural produce is slumping in price, and when values are decreasing, but there are some smallholders who are finding that they can work their holdings economically. If, as was suggested a few minutes ago, there is no more farm produce grown on the small holdings collectively than there was on the large farms, there is something radically wrong, for to my mind there is no possibility of a smallholder succeeding on a small holding unless he goes in for intensive cultivation. If he thinks some-
thing about the kind of crops he has got to grow, and if he is near a town, makes provision for the kind of foodstuffs that town requires, he will then be able to produce 100, 200, 300 or in some cases 400 per cent. more than was done on the large farms. Comparing the English with the Scottish smallholders, I think, is not a fair proposition. You have in England a number of smallholders within reasonable distance of this great city, near railway carriage, with magnificent soil, with a splendid climate, where they can rear two or three crops in one season. Is there any place in the Highlands where they can got more than one crop in one season?

Mr. MUNRO: Very often not that.

Mr. GARDINER: As one of the most eminent divines in the City of London said in my hearing not long ago, speaking to a Scottish audience on an August afternoon when the rain was pouring down and all the visitors were very much depressed, "You should be thankful, boys and girls, for the Scottish climate. It is true there are difficulties and the soil is thin and the crops are sparse, but the boys and girls who are reared under these conditions can be transplanted South or anywhere else, and they always thrive well." We want to see it made possible for many boys and girls to be reared on small holdings in Scotland who will be an honour to the whole country and to the Empire wherever they go. The proposal has been made that we should have cooperation. I welcome the suggestion. It is not the first time it has been made by a long way. There are many difficulties, but I think at present there has been greater progress made in regard to cooperation amongst small holders, and even large holders, than? have ever known before, and this is something which should have our approval and support.
I have often thought and said that no effort or expense should be spared in developing small holdings in our own country, but under the new conditions and under the new experience that we have it is possible that emigration, which some of us thought was a curse to the community, might be one of the best things possible, especially when we are sending our best emigrants to our own colonies. We can recall what some of our colonies have done for us in the late War by sending back the finest men we sent off to
them, and in co-operation with our colonists it is surely possible to establish on far better and more economic lines the settlement of some of our ex-service men. It is true that the ex-service men in some cases are whining and say they have not had the treatment they ought to have. I am sorry so few of them have been settled but it has been a kindness to many of the men themselves. Hundreds of them were carried away with the lure of agriculture and with the kind of life that could be lived there, and they thought, because they saw an odd farmer here and there with yellow kid gloves and a motor car and a few other such accessories, they had nothing to do but to go into agriculture and they would be able to live in the same manner. Some of them have had a rude awakening, and others may if they can be settled on the land. But having made the promise, surely we must do our best to keep it. After all, the country's pledged word has to be honoured, and we may gain more by honouring our promises, even although the fulfilment proves uneconomical, than in any other direction.
We have had a tremendous scourge of foot-and-mouth disease, which has swept over Scotland as well as England, and those who have observed the manner in which the disease was dealt with by the different county associations, through the Ministry of Agriculture in London, have come to the conclusion that there is need of some revision. There ought to be one central authority in Scotland for dealing with this subject. Personally, I have always thought, although I am not universally supported in Scotland in this view, that the Board of Agriculture for Scotland should be the administrative authority. After the recent experience, I am more convinced than ever on that point. There is one matter on which further money ought to be spent, and that is for plant raising and for research in connection with plant tests, and administration along those lines. I congratulate the Board on what they have done and the steps they have taken in this direction, but if we are to succeed as a country in competition with other countries in making our agriculture a success, we require to investigate every possible scientific method of dealing with crops, increasing their volume, and deal-
ing with the whole matter of agriculture in a way that will be economically sound and good for the country.

Mr. R. McLAREN: Whatever may have been the cause of the delay in settling men on the land, it is most unfortunate that there has been so much delay, because we all made solemn promises that we would see justice done to the ex-service men in connection with land settlement. I know very little about agriculture, but I want to draw attention to certain things which have occurred in connection with the training of men for agriculture. The Board are to be congratulated upon the method by which they have trained the men, but after they have been trained in some cases the money has not been well spent. I know of several cases of men who have been trained in connection with poultry keeping, because they were not able to follow their own occupation. After their training they began operations. A grant of under £100 was made to them, but it was so meagre that they were unable to stock their farms and to build small houses, and in a short time the whole thing had to be abandoned, the men were out of employment, and the money was lost. I suggest that in connection with the training of ex-service men the Board ought to see to it that they have sufficient capital to start in the work for which they have been trained. Otherwise, the same thing will occur in other directions that has occurred in connection with poultry keeping. There are cases in my own district where men borrowed money to stock their farms, but owing to the smallness of the grant they were hopelessly bankrupt in a very short time. If it is worth while for the Board of Agriculture to train them in connection with agriculture. it is worth while to see that sufficient money is granted to enable them to carry on their work. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd) quoted several cases where through want of plant, etc., the thing had become a hopeless failure. That is due to the same cause as the cause which has operated in the cases I have mentioned. Unless the Board of Agriculture are prepared to do something in the way I have suggested, the money will be wasted.
I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Kinross and Western (Mr. Gardiner)
say that a great change had come over agriculturists in regard to emigration, Not long ago those of us who believed in an Empire development scheme were assailed because we advocated it. I suggest that in order to help agriculturists it would not be a bad plan if trained men and trained boys were assisted by means of an emigration scheme, so that they could do good to the country in which they settled and help this country also. On the broad question of training, I regret to say that this year the very small sum of £5,000 is allotted for this purpose. That, I suppose, means that fewer men are coming along to be trained. If it means that the money cannot be obtained for training the men it is a great pity, because the country is bound to help these men who did so much for us during the War. After we have pledged ourselves as honest men we are, bound to see our pledges carried out, and it behoves this House, and especially the Scottish Members, to see to it that, having promised these men that their interests should not suffer because they went to the War, something should be done. The small sum of £5,000 should be increased, so that the men may get their training and we may help them to follow their new occupation.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: I desire to deal as far as I can with several practical points. In the first place I would refer to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, which was supported by the hon. and gallant, Member for East Fife (Sir A. Sprott) and the hon. Member for Kinross and Western (Mr. Gardiner) that a Commission should be set up to inquire into the whole work of the Board of Agriculture with regard to land settlement. I hope the Secretary for Scotland will not jump at that suggestion but will give it very careful consideration. The complaints that have been made to-day have been that the Board of Agriculture has not carried out the process of land settlement with sufficient rapidity. If a commission is to be set up to inquire into the whole process, it will mean that the Board of Agriculture, its Chairman, its staff, will have to give evidence and be taken away from their work. Although a year hence the commission may submit some sort of report, the whole of the work in the meantime in connection with Scottish land settlement may unreasonably be held up.
The Secretary for Scotland said he had devoted many hours of careful thought to Scottish land settlement, and so had the Board of Agriculture for Scotland. That is unquestionably the case, and I am prepared, in my humble way, to pay tribute to the Secretary for Scotland for the thought and care that he has given to this problem. Of course, we know what it is that has chiefly held up the Secretary for Scotland and the Board of Agriculture and prevented them from progressing as fast as we would desire in the matter of land settlement. It has been the question of finance. The Secretary for Scotland has gone again and again to the representatives of the Treasury for further money in order to help forward the question of land settlement, but he has not been able to obtain it. It comes ill from the mouths of some hon. Gentlemen opposite who have never on any occasion, so far as I am aware, done anything to check the Government in its reckless finance and wasteful expenditure to ask now why there is no money for the progress of land settlement schemes. What has the hon. Member for Lanark North (Mr. McLaren) done? Has he voted against expenditure in Mesopotamia and in Russia, involving this country in hundreds of millions of pounds, when a few millions would have done all he wants in the matter of openings for ox-service men on the land? A matter of five million or ten million pounds would enable the Board of Agriculture to engage a larger staff, to purchase more land, to put up more buildings and steadings, and in a very short time we should have tremendous progress. I realise that the Secretary and the Board have gone a long way in the direction we all desire, but they have been stopped by the reckless and wasteful extravagance of the Government.
The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) referred to the question of agricultural organisation. The right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) will remember that in 1911 he moved, and I seconded, in this House the Scottish Small Landholders Bill. Both of us laid stress upon the fact that the Scottish Landholders Act was not sufficient for Scottish land settlement, but that what was most essential was agricultural research, education, and organisation. My right hon. Friend
has done a great deal by private effort. So far as I have been able I have also done the same. The Secretary for Scotland has assisted agricultural education in Scotland. We have gone further. We have developed the Scottish Smallholders Organisation, which is to be amalgamated with the Scottish Agricultural Organisation. I would ask the Secretary for Scotland to tell us what is exactly the position at the present moment? We set up in connection with that the Scottish Central Land Bank. That has gone out of existence. The Secretary for Scotland promised last year that he would take steps to substitute for it a system of credit facilities for smallholders in Scotland. How far has that got? Personally, I took exception to the scheme. I took exception to the fact that the scheme did not bring within its scope the efforts of the smallholders themselves, and was to be run by a bureaucratic, even though a sympathetic, public department. What is the present position of the credit facilities scheme for assisting smallholders? When the right hon. Gentleman replies perhaps he will say exactly how the matter stands.
This is the only day in the year on which we have an opportunity of discussing the question of Scottish agriculture. Therefore I make no apology for pressing the somewhat large questions which affect the agricultural industry in Scotland. It is a well-known fact that agriculture, both in Scotland and in England. has been going through hard times. The slump in prices, the very heavy increase in rates and the continued operation of Summertime have all had a very injurious effect on Scottish agriculture. That brings me to the Report of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland. On page 13 I notice that, at a meeting of the Advisory Committee on the 11th March, a discussion took place regarding the allocation of the grant of £150,000 for the promotion of agricultural development under Section 3 of the Corn Production Repeal Act of 1921 and as to the manner in which the £150,000, the Scottish share of the £1,000,000 given under that Act, is being distributed. At that time some of us put forward a plea that it should be devoted not to ulterior objects such as small holdings, but to agricultural re-
search and education. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us that it is principally to those objects that this sum of £150,000 is being devoted. I am glad to notice on page 27 of this Report that, in respect of agricultural education and research and the work carried out in that connection at agricultural colleges,
Any future increase in the attendance at the colleges will depend on the growth of agricultural science and the appreciation of its utility by practical agriculturists. Signs are not wanting that this interest and appreciation are increasing.
That is a significant and important fact. What is required more than anything else in agriculture; at the present day is, that the sons of farmers, people engaged in practical agriculture, should take advantage of these agricultural college courses, of the science and education of agriculture in order that they may be more fitted, when they take up farming themselves, to engage in agricultural pursuits in a scientific manner. That is the reason why, at that time, we laid so much stress on the fact that this particular £150,000 should be devoted to agricultural education and research. If real progress is made in the question of agricultural education in Scotland we shall sec a revolution in the system of farming and all that that means in increased wealth and prosperity to the country as a whole.
I pass to the subject of grazings in deer forests. I have asked the Secretary for Scotland questions in regard to legislation which would be required to carry out the recommendations of the Deer Forests Commission. I am not going to poach on ground outside the scope of this Committee, but I would ask the Secretary for Scotland whether it is still not possible to introduce this Session the Bill that he is drafting? If that is not possible, could he, before he introduces it, give some indication during the Recess of what its contents are going to be? That may be somewhat outside the limits of Parliamentary procedure, but we know cases where secrets, Cabinet secrets, even, are disclosed, and if he is not able to introduce this Bill before the end of this Session, then I hope that he will consider whether, in an interview with the Press, something of that sort could not be arranged, in order that we should be enabled to discuss the chief proposals of the Bill before we resume in October.
I am very glad to notice that the Treasury has sanctioned at the instance of the Board of Agriculture a grant not exceeding £2,300 from the Development Fund in aid of the maintenance during the first 12 months, from the date of commencement of its work, of the Animal Disease Research Association. All who are interested in agriculture will welcome that announcement. I am convinced that the right way to go to work, so far as animal research is concerned, is not to keep animal research work wholly within the limits of a department, but to bring it within the scope of the work of outside organisations, working farmers and others, v. hose interest it is to promote research in animal disease. This is a step in the right direction. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman and the Board have been able to put this forward to the Treasury. I hope that if the work develops further money may be forthcoming. I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) is not here. He has given special consideration to this subject, and he would emphasise what I am going to say. Those who know the facts know that certain discoveries, let us say in sheep disease—I go no further—might alone mean millions of pounds saved in the year It is impossible to lay too much stress on animals disease research, and I am glad that it has received sympathetic consideration from the Secretary for Scotland and the Board.
I am not one of those who join in the criticism of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland. The Board was only set up in 1913. the year before the War, and it has done on the whole marvellous work in very trying circumstances. There may have been lapses and faults, but who does not commit faults? The Board has been hampered in the matter of Scottish land settlement by lack of funds. The right hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the fact that the Board has been reconstituted. I wish the reconstituted Board every possible success, and I believe that, reconstituted as it is, if it has the funds put at its disposal it will make great progress in the matters which have been debated this evening.

7.0 P.M.

Major M. WOOD: What has taken place to-night shows that the time devoted to Scottish Estimates is inadequate, and I hope that soon we shall have two allotted days for Scottish
Estimates in the year. I do not desire to go over all the work of the Board of Agriculture. I confine myself entirely to the question of land settlement. The Secretary for Scotland took some credit to himself that he had been of late months speeding up the process of settlement of ex-service men and others on the land. I am very glad to acknowledge that there is some justification for that boast. I am bound, however, to say that the undoubted acceleration of the settlement of men on the land has not been sufficient to make good the promises of the Government before the Election of 1918. We look for a great deal more from the Government than we have yet received in that particular respect. Might I ask the Board of Agriculture to consider this matter in a subsequent Report? The Secretary for Scotland gave us some very interesting figures to-day with regard to the progress of land settlement from the beginning. The Reports which are published always take all the years together, and give us the number of holdings which have been created since the commencement of the Act of 1911. We want to have the time during which the creation of small holdings has been in progress divided into two parts, so that we may know what was done before the Act of 1919 and what has been done since. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that Act opened a new era in this matter, and the two eras ought to be considered quite separately.
I was rather surprised at a sentence in the Report of the Board of Agriculture—I think the same thing was suggested in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman —that applications from ex-service men had practically ceased.

Mr. MUNRO: I do not think I said that.

Major WOOD: I withdraw that in regard to the right hon. Gentleman, but I repeat it in regard to the Report. On page 15, the Report says:
As compared with 1920, applications from ex-service men show a decrease of 1,122 and those from civilians a decrease of 272. It thus appears that the great majority of ex-service men desiring land had lodged their applications during the preceding two years.
That seems a most amazing remark, in view of the fact that the Board of Agri-
culture itself, on the instructions of the Government, caused a notice to be put into the Press—or, at any rate, they came to the decision that after 1st March, 1921, the preference which had previously been given to ex-service men would be withdrawn. To make a Regulation of that kind, and then to boast that the applications from ex-service men have fallen off, is quite inconsistent, and is quite to mislead the country. No doubt it is unintentional, but it is, nevertheless, very real. A great number of ex-service men still require holdings, but have not applied for them for various reasons. The publication of that particular Order naturally put a stop to the flow of the applications. As has been said, there are still some 4,365 ex-service men who have applied for holdings, and whose applications are not yet disposed of. That suggests there is still a very effective demand for small holdings, and that the present rate of progress will not be sufficient to overtake the demand in the time we are entitled to expect. That is making all due allowance for the possibility that a considerable percentage of these are not really effective applications at all. I quite realise that.

Mr. MUNRO: The hon. and gallant Gentleman may regard that, not as a possibility, but as a fact.

Major WOOD: I am quite sure there are a considerable number of men who would not take the holdings, even if they were offered to them on good terms. The right hon. Gentleman, however, is very well aware that it is difficult to get at concrete facts on these questions. I am inclined to think that the terms on which the Board of Agriculture sometimes propose to settle men are not as attractive as the men were led to expect in 1018. It seems to mo that the Board of Agriculture had no right or authority to issue the Order with regard to ex-service men. This preference, which was to be given to ex-service men, was given by Statute. The Secretary for Scotland. with all his power, is not entitled to overrule an Act of Parliament. The preference was given by Parliament, and the right hon. Gentleman is going quite outside his province in making such an Order at all. We have particular reason to complain, because no adequate notice was given of publication of the Order.
Anyone acquainted with this question knows that a great number of ex-service men, who had hopes of small holdings and meant to apply for them, deliberately postponed making their applications, for various reasons. They were entitled to assume, in any case, that all suitable ex-service men were to be given small holdings, because that was the promise made by the Government in 1918. There wore various reasons why they did not apply. I could give them to the Committee, but I will only mention one. There are at present something like 150,000 men still under treatment. A great number of those men who will eventually be discharged from hospital will be unfit to go back to their former employment. They will look to engaging in open-air work and to getting small holdings. By this Order of the right hon. Gentleman these men, whose only fault is that they wore seriously wounded, are to be deprived of the preference promised to ex-service men. In his speech the right hon. Gentleman dealt with another aspect of this question—the injustice which was in many cases done both to civilians and ex-service men because of this preference given to ex-service men. It has been construed by the Board of Agriculture that that preference meant that no civilians were going to be considered at all, and in many cases a good scheme has been set at nought because the Board would have had to fit into it a number of civilians in order to provide for ex-service men in any particular district. I hope, even now, that the Secretary for Scotland will be able to rescind that Order altogether, and give a greater discretion to the Board of Agriculture to make schemes which will take in both classes of men. If he gives such discretion, there will be no difficulty on that particular score—a difficulty which, I note, is referred to in the Report of the Board of Agriculture.
I have, on several occasions, drawn the attention of the right hon. Gentleman—I do so again this afternoon—to a question to which he referred in his speech. That is the fact that there are so many smallholders in Scotland at present who have been on their holdings for a considerable time, and who, even now, do not know where they are. The right hon. Gentleman told me this afternoon that 178 smallholders in possession of their
holdings do not yet know the rents they are going to pay. That is most unfair to those men, because no man can expect to work any holding properly unless he knows exactly where he stands. He does not know whether he is making a profit or a loss, or if the venture is likely to come out successfully or not. That is not all. I wish to call to the form of agreement which the right hon. Gentleman makes these men sign before they take up a holding. The first sentence says,
I, hereby agree to enter upon occupation of the holding numbered, at a rent to be fixed by the Board.
That is to say, he is going into a holding and the Board may charge any rent they think fit. The agreement goes on:
I also agree to pay for the buildings and equipment allocated to the holding.
There is nothing said there about the method by which the price of the buildings and equipment is to be fixed. The poor small holder goes into the holding and is entirely under the thumb of the Board of Agriculture, who may practically charge him what they think fit. The agreement goes on:
I further agree to occupy the holding subject to the conditions of let which may be fixed by the Board,
and so on. There is a number of sentences of that nature, and not a single undertaking of any kind by the Board of Agriculture. An agreement of that nature is harsh and unconscionable. To make a smallholder sign it before he goes into a holding is to take an unfair advantage of a man who is not in a position to know exactly where he stands.
Imagine an ex-service man, who has just come out of the Army. He perhaps has not got a house, and is living under most unfavourable conditions. He has applied for a small holding, and the Board of Agriculture says, "We will give you a small holding, but you must sign the agreement." Of course, he will sign it at once. The very suggestion that he can get a house will make him sign anything. Once he has signed it and got his house he will have time to reflect. He will find that he has perhaps risked his small capital, because, when the time comes, the Board may stipulate for any rent they think fit and put what price they wish upon the buildings. By the time this price comes to be definitely
fixed, it may be—indeed, it has occurred —that the value of these buildings has fallen very considerably. Naturally, before the man agrees finally to take over the buildings at a certain price, he says, "I want to take them over at the value at which they stand now. It is unfair that you should ask me to pay a price for buildings which I could not realise if I sold them at once. To agree to anything of that kind means to me a dead loss at once." If the Board of Agriculture think it right to delay coming to a definite agreement as to the price to be paid by the smallholder, the Board should bear any loss that might have accrued in the interval. Very often it is not the case that buildings have to be put up. The buildings and everything else are there to be valued.
I must make some reference to the question of deer forests, and particularly to the Departmental Committee's Report which was published some months ago. The quickest way to make my point will be to read a sentence or two from the Report. In their general conclusions the Committee say, on page 27 of the Report:
Economic pressure does not account for the afforestation of the whole. In some cases the sporting tenants offered a higher rent than any farmer could afford to pay. In others sporting tenants bought up the rights of adjoining sheep farmers. In others, farms were bought for the express purpose of creating deer forests. Even at the low prices then current, we are satisfied that a considerable part of the area afforested since 1892 could have been farmed at a profit after paying a moderate rent.
The Committee state on page 17 of the Report:
There are instances of forests on the lower levels with sufficient haugh land and old arable which might prove capable of settlement by the constitution of self-contained small holdings on such lands, and the use in whole or in part of the remaining ground as common grazings or for the carrying of a club stock.
That is an authoritative statement that a part of the land which is now occupied by deer forests could be used for the purpose of creating small holdings. What have the Secretary for Scotland and his Department done to get hold of that land, which at present is of practically no value? I think I am right in saying that there has not been a single acre of deer forest land taken for small holdings, except in one or two cases where the land
has been bought outright by the Government. That is a condition of things of which we have a right to complain. There is land there which could be used. In the last Act dealing with this matter there was a provision which I am inclined to suspect had the definite object of preventing the land being taken for land settlement. The provision stated that if the Government took any land from deer forests for small holdings they would have cast upon them the obligation to put up at their own expense fences to keep the deer from wandering on the small holdings. If anyone keeps wild animals of any kind the onus should be on him to keep them more or less under restraint so that they can do no damage. If it be necessary to set up fences round small holdings that are taken from deer forests, the expense should not be put upon the Government or on anyone who desires the land for cultivation. I hope that the Secretary for Scotland will hold out some hope that in the near future land in deer forests will be seized by him and his officials and applied to the purpose for which this Committee says it is eminently suitable. I am glad to think that in recent months the Secretary for Scotland has made some progress. We hope he will make greater and more accelerated progress in the future. I realise all the difficulties that there are. We have deliberately allowed land, in the Highlands particularly, to go out of cultivation, and we cannot expect to undo the mischief of generations without expenditure.

Mr. F. C. THOMSON: I rise to deal with only one subject. I have been reading the Report of the Board of Agriculture, and particularly that part dealing with research, agricultural education and the work of the training colleges. I would like to draw attention to that work, which is of the highest importance for the future of scientific agriculture in Scotland. Valuable researches are being carried out under the auspices of a Joint Committee of the University of Aberdeen and of the North of Scotland Agricultural College. During the past year they have been studying different foods, finding out the mineral requirements in foods for pigs and sheep at different stages, and have been making valuable experiments in regard to other foods. Valuable work has also been done in testing the nature
of typical soils, and with regard to drain gauges, especially interesting during a dry year. Much study has also been devoted to an inquiry into the causes of bee disease. All this is work of great importance. We want to find out all we can about soils and the most nourishing food for various stock. In this country in the past we have been too apt to be haphazard with regard to agriculture, and have not realised how much was still to be learned from study and research, chemical and otherwise. This work is being carried on in Scotland with very satisfactory results, and I am sure that it has the hearty approval and the good wishes of the Secretary for Scotland.

Sir HENRY COWAN: The vital interest of Aberdeenshire in the subject of this Debate is perhaps indicated by the fact that four Members representing different parts of the county have spoken in succession to-night. I would have liked to have said something about small holdings, but I realise that the hour is late and that other Votes are to be discussed. I shall, therefore, say merely that. I agree with a great deal that has been said by my colleagues, but that I feel that we are greatly indebted to the Secretary for Scotland for the interest he has shown in the subject, and that we ought to congratulate him on the record which he has established under very difficult circumstances. The subject to which I wish to call attention briefly is that of grass sickness in Aberdeenshire. I called attention to the matter some weeks ago in a question which I put to (he President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. He replied that as this was not a notifiable disease it did not come under the jurisdiction of his Department, but under that of the Secretary for Scotland. Grass sickness is a mysterious and deadly malady. It is raging in my constituency, particularly in the areas around Turriff. The cause of it is unknown, but it is suspected that the use of bone meal is at least a large contributory cause. That is the opinion of many competent observers.
In view of this suspicion and of the fact that two distinct cases of anthrax have been traced within the last few weeks to the use of bone meal, I submit that I am entitled to ask my right hon. Friend to take steps for the protection of agriculturists against the dangers resulting from
the use of this meal in the condition in which it is supplied. I understand that if bone meal is treated by super-heated steam these dangers are removed. There is a cargo of 2,000 tons of bone meal which arrived at Aberdeen a little while ago, and has been distributed throughout the county. This meal, distributed in the condition in which it was shipped to Aberdeen, is a possible source of danger. A sample of the meal was sent by a farmer, whose horses died of anthrax, to the bacteriological laboratory in Aberdeen for examination by a doctor tocher, and he reported that the bacillus anthrax was found in the sample. We are entitled to ask the Secretary for Scotland to take such measures as it may be in his power to take to protect the pastures from infection. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is yet prepared to say what can be done in regard to the supply of a serum to deal with grass sickness. Such a serum has been employed with considerable success, though not on a sufficiently large scale to justify one in saying that it is a complete cure. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that he has made an arrangement for a trial of this serum on a large scale, and that a supply will be placed at the disposal of farmers. I wish also to draw attention to the hardship which farmers in my constituency experience owing to the heavy taxation levied upon motor cars, and particularly upon those cars for which the farmers, being an economical people and not too affluent, have a preference, namely, the Ford cars. Upon these cars the tax is no less than £'23 per annum. That is a very serious impost upon the basic industry of the country, and I would ask my right hon. Friend to use his influence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in favour of its removal.

Mr. MUNRO: There have been, I think, 12 speeches delivered on the subject of land settlement, and I must endeavour, as rapidly as possible, to run over the points raised and to endeavour to meet the criticisms levelled against the Board. I shall begin with the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean). First of all, I regret that I should have to say in his absence which I should have much preferred to say in his presence, but he has explained to me that he is unable to be present at this stage of the Debate. Before I deal
with the speech in detail, I wish to clear up a misapprehension which seems to have arisen out of a phrase which I used in opening this Debate. I referred to "malignant criticism" of the Board. I am afraid I did not make it clear that I did not for a moment suggest that such criticism had proceeded from any Member of this House. Looking back over the various Debates which we have had, dealing with this matter, I cannot remember any criticism from any quarter of the House which could properly be so described. My reference was to criticism in quite different quarters outside the House, and if any hon. Member thought I was referring to criticisms delivered inside the House, I wish to disabuse his mind of that idea at the earliest possible moment.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles made what I regarded, and still regard, as a speech which was grudging rather than generous. He said far more rapid progress should have been made with regard to land settlement in recent years, and he described the progress which had been made as thoroughly unsatisfactory. I do not think my right hon. Friend listened attentively to the speech which I made. His attention, as he owned himself, was diverted by other matters and accordingly be delivered a speech, a large part of which obviously had been prepared without any reference to the figures which I gave, and which accordingly was quite inappropriate to those figures. My right hon. Friend is not in a strong position to criticise in regard to this matter. I think it was the hon. and gallant Member for Central Aberdeen (Major M. Wood) who referred to the desirability of separating the two eras of land settlement. I should like to draw the attention of the right hon. Member for Peebles to the two eras with regard to land settlement. I should like him, on reflection, to say whether, when he considers what was done before this Government came into power and what has been done since it came into power, he is in a particularly strong position to criticise the rate of progress which has been made or the expenditure which has been incurred.

Major M. WOOD: rose—

Mr. MUNRO: I am going to be perfectly fair in my criticism, but I will not give way to my hon. and gallant
Friend. I claim my right to reply. My hon. and gallant Friend occupied a considerable time and he should hear my reply, even if the reply is not convenient to him. I was going to point out that in the years from 1912 to 1916 the number of holdings which were set up in Scotland, under the Small Holdings Act and under the previous Administration, was 933. In 1922 the number was brought up to 2,058. In the former era the cost was, approximately, £280,000. That was the measure of the generosity then meted out to the smallholders. The approximate cost of the holdings, which have been constructed since the present Government came into power, is over £2,000,000. Now the Committee will appreciate what I meant by saying that the right hon. Member for Peebles is not in a strong position to criticise the rate of progress made in recent years when it is compared with the rate of progress made under very much more easy conditions, in pre-War days.

Major M. WOOD: We had no powers then—no compulsory powers.

Mr. MUNRO: My hon. and gallant Friend was not in the House then, but he knows perfectly well that under the statute, which the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine (Lieut.-Clolonel A. Murray) was partly instrumental in getting passed, very large power was acquired. I am not quite certain that it was sufficient, and I claim some little credit for remedying that state of matters, but it will not do for my hon. and gallant Friend to say there were no powers. The powers were considerable.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: They were not so great as the present powers.

Mr. MUNRO: I hope I may be allowed to proceed without interruption. I am developing an argument which is very difficult after the number of speeches which have been made. I pass from that, having made what I regard as a perfectly fair point, to deal with what the right hon. Member for Peebles proceeded to say on the subject of raids. What he said on that subject I regard as very regrettable —I had almost said mischievous. I am quite sure it was unintentional on his part, but his remarks might quite well—unwittingly, so far as he is concerned —be construed outside, in uninformed quarters, as a direct incentive to raids.
The right hon. Gentleman did not intend that, I am quite sure, but I have got to deal with it. He has no responsibility in the matter. I have; and that is the difference. What he said was unfortunate. He said, for example, that apart from the raid there would have been no settlement in Raasay. There is no warrant whatever for that statement. It is wholly inaccurate, and I regret that it should have been made, because the situation has been difficult enough in all conscience, and I should have expected from my right hon. Friend encouragement and support in the policy which I have followed in this regard, instead of criticism which really tends to weaken my hands in dealing with an extremely difficult situation.
So difficult was that situation that, after the fullest consideration, I issued instructions that all persons who raided lands should be struck off the list of effective applicants for land, and I am quite sure that intimation had a wholesome effect in Scotland. I regretted the necessity of making it, but I felt constrained to make it, and I hoped I should have the support of every Scottish Member in endeavouring to enforce the law, because nothing can be more prejudicial to the interests of the average ex-service man than that these sporadic raids should take place. Let the Committee note what the situation is. There are hundreds of these men waiting quite patiently. Then suddenly they see certain men who are not so patient carrying out a raid, and then my right hon. Friend says that because these men did so they are getting the land. As I say, it is not an accurate statement, and I am afraid of the result of that kind of argument throughout the country to-day, and therefore I regret the tone and tenor of my right hon. Friend's observations in that particular. My right hon. Friend then proceeded to ask me certain questions with regard to the Board of Agriculture's action in the matter of Port Kelm. Although I hope the Committee will not regard it as tedious, I shall endeavour to give an answer to his question, but, I may add, it would be very much more convenient—and I do not know that I shall be here next year—for any holder of my office, if he were to be informed beforehand, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Dr. Murray) was good enough to do on this occasion, with re-
gard to specific cases relating to specific parts of Scotland. A Minister cannot possibly be expected to be fully prepared unless he has notice given him that these questions are to be raised.
My right hon. Friend asked about Port Kelm. That happens to be fresh in my memory because the hon. and gallant Member for Central Aberdeen (Major M. Wood) raised it to-day at Question time. I first refused to consent to the Board's Order in this case, as I thought it would be more equitable to the lady who was interested in that property as proprietor that it should be acquired by purchase than that a scheme should be carried out under Part II of the Act. The proprietor, however, when approached on the subject, declined to sell, and having given her the fullest opportunity of adopting what I considered in her own interests the more equitable and easy method, I then directed that a scheme should be carried out under Part II of the Act, and that has been done, and that is the whole story of Port Kelm. Everything, so far as I know, is peaceful there to-day. My right hon. Friend proceeded to inquire with regard to particular schemes, and I really think it would be in the interests of the Committee generally that I should not give any details across the Floor, which would occupy time, and which, I feel, would not interest many Members present. I should prefer to communicate by letter with my right hon. Friend, giving him, as I can easily do, the information for which he sought. Finally, he spoke with regard to the land which was feud at Gretna. He asked how the feu duty was fixed. The answer to that is that the feu duty was fixed by the War Office itself, and by arrangement between the two Departments and according to my information, the adjustment was a satisfactory and equitable one. My right hon. Friend spoke about hypothetical percentages. They are not hypothetical. These are not probabilities; they are facts. I have had the most careful investigation made, and I have learned, only this afternoon, as a result of a resurvey, that it is safe to knock off from 25 to 30 percent. as being ineffective applications both among the ex-service men and among the civilians.
I pass to the subject which was raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd), who asked for the appoint-
ment of a Commission of Inquiry. He called it a Committee of Experts, and he suggested that it might be drawn from farmers and farm workers and the landed interests, and, I think, also the Board itself. I have very great hesitation in assenting to a proposal of that kind. especially if the Committee is to deal with matters of policy. I rather gather the hon. Member's proposal to be that it should deal with matters of policy. He said these holdings are uneconomic. In other words, his speech cancelled the speech of the right hon. Member for Peebles, because the right hon. Gentleman said, "Expedite and accelerate your policy of small holdings," whereas the hon. Member for Linlithgow says, "Shut it down, it is uneconomic, and appoint a Commission to inquire into the whole matter." It is very difficult to appoint a Commission to deal with policy for which I, as a Member of the Government, am responsible, for which this House is responsible, and which has been affirmed and re-affirmed in this House. It is also a policy which has been settled by the Cabinet and which, with particular reference to Scotland, was re-surveyed quite a short time ago by a Cabinet Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War.
It seems to me that it would be difficult to allow policy to be reviewed at the hands of any such Committee as is suggested, and inasmuch as the whole situation with regard to Scotland has recently been subjected to examination by this Sub-Committee of the Cabinet on the responsibility of the whole Government representing all branches of the Coalition, I think it would be highly inappropriate so soon after the situation has been dealt with authoritatively by the Cabinet, that a roving inquiry should be set on foot and taken part in by the various classes of the community to which the hon. Member for Linlithgow referred. Surely the more appropriate thing to do is to do what the Board of Agriculture has already offered to do. At the Conference to which reference has been made, the Board of Agriculture undertook that if any case of alleged mismanagement were represented to it, an immediate inquiry would be made by an official of the Board in conjunction with any member of the Farmers' Union, or other body which conceived itself to be interested. That proposal was accepted as satisfactory by the
Conference to which I have referred. Will the Committee forgive me if I read, as he made such a point of it, a few sentences from what was said by the representative of the Federation after the Conference had concluded? Mr. Richardson said:
I feel, speaking for the Federation, that you, Sir Robert, have dealt with our memorandum after a short reading of it in a way to show that we have raised points of interest to the Board, and that the Board have previously had those points in their own view, so that I think there is, speaking for the Federation, a good result from this Conference, in that we have both been seeking the same thing and that this can do nothing but good. I am speaking for Mr. Murray, and he desired that we should express our gratitude again to the Board for having met us to-day and for the statement you have made, and that he considers, from what you have said to us. that you have said all we could expect you to say, namely, that if we had special points where we have individual cases in point of what we think is maladministration, you are ready to receive a responsible person and send one of your people to meet him and discuss with him, and, having said that, we think you have said all that we could expect you to say to-day.
Accordingly, the representative of the body, for whom I assume my hon. Friend spoke, seemed to have been satisfied with that proposal, which seemed to me an adequate and fitting proposal, much more adequate and fitting than the bigger proposal which my hon. Friend made.
We had from my hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), if I may say so, one of the moderate and suggestive speeches which we expect him to deliver. I was a little sorry that he should have dealt as he did with the alleged cheese-paring arrangements which have been made in regard to land settlement in Scotland. It is the old story, that while we are all economists, we always want to economise at the expense of something in which we are not ourselves interested, but I am told that the decrease in Sub-head H to which he referred, "Grants to Agriculture (Scotland) Fund," is substantially due, first, to the utilisation of unspent balances of the Fund and, secondly, to the realisation of assets of the Fund. At any rate, I consider that, so far as Scotland is concerned, we have been quite fairly treated in the matter of finance, although I could wish the money had been greater and could have
gone further. My hon. Friend went on to speak of training men to settle on small holdings. I quite agree in regard to the value of training, but, at the same time, I think perhaps the complete answer to that suggestion, at the moment, is that there are more men who are fully trained waiting for holdings at the present moment than we can accommodate, and accordingly I am afraid that, at the moment and under the circumstances of to-day, it would be a work of supererogation to train any further men for that purpose. I would remind my hon. Friend that quite a number of special schemes directed to the use of men who are in clubs are now proceeding. My hon. Friend then suggested that more should be done upon what I might call a community basis. I quite agree that that is a valuable suggestion, but, according to my information, where it has been tried in England it has not been a striking success. Undoubtedly, however, I will bear his suggestion in mind and confer with my advisers to see whether or not it is possible in the future to do anything in that direction in Scotland.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Fife (Sir A. Sprot) made some criticism with regard to the kind of small holdings which we are setting up in Scotland. He was correct when ho said that, whereas in England a small holding is more or less an allotment, in Scotland it is a miniature farm and accordingly more costly to construct, but here we are dealing with matters of Scottish traditions, and really there is no demand in Scotland to-day, so I am informed, for these bare land holdings, with which we are quite familiar on this side of the Border and which are worked, as I believe, to some profit. In the Highlands my hon. and gallant Friend will remember that this is in many cases the only industry, coupled with fishing, in some places, and accordingly I am afraid it is impossible at this time of the day to introduce what is really an alien system into Scotland for which there is no desire at all, so far as my information goes. My hon. and gallant Friend spoke about enlisting the sympathy of landlords. The Board have made every attempt possible in that direction, and have invited the assistance and co-operation of the Land Property Federation, and I have no complaint to
make in regard to the manner in which we have been met in this matter at all by that association or by the landlords in Scotland generally. My hon. and gallant Friend went on to criticise the expenditure of money on Thirdpart, Fifeshire. That is a story with which I am familiar. He spoke of the amount of money which had been spent, but he must remember that the amount to which he referred is not a gift but a loan, and that, so far as capital is concerned, it pays interest to the nation in the form of a return—namely, in the form of rent, and my hon. and gallant Friend will remember that on this matter he had an interview with the Board of Agriculture. There had been some letters in a certain newspaper raising the question whether this estate had been successfully dealt with. My hon. and gallant Friend kindly interviewed the Director of Land Settlement in October of last year, and the record taken at the time is in these words, that after hearing both sides of the ease the hon. and gallant Member was of opinion that, generally speaking, the holders had no seal ground of complaint and that the Board had acted reasonably.
I pass for a moment to my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Dr. Murray), and at the outset I want to make acknowledgment, if I may, of the generous character of the speech which he was good enough to deliver. It was a balanced speech, containing criticism and appreciation. At one time he thought he was going too far in the direction of appreciation, and so he backwatered very rapidly into the region of criticism, but I have no complaint to make of the speech as a whole. It was a kindly speech, which I very much appreciated. In regard to the situation in North and South Uist, which he raised, I think he knows how the matter stands. I have the details here, but I think it would be more convenient, speaking late as I am doing, that I should communicate with him on that subject, and also on the subject of housing, in which the Board of Agriculture and the Board of Health are jointly interested. My hon. Friend passed to the subject of roads. He is very familiar with the road problem in the Western Isles, and I am very sympathetic, as he knows, with the wants and desires of the people in that locality. I am obtaining, as I said at Question Time, a report on
the whole matter. I have already, after some conference with the Treasury, extended the time by two months during which these roads can be completed, and whether or not I shall succeed in persuading the Treasury to agree to a further extension is on the knees of the gods. I shall certainly undertake to represent my hon. Friend's views, as well as my own, to the Treasury in order that they may come to a decision. Into my hon. Friend's dispute with Lord Lever-hulme I do not propose to enter. I myself have had a great many interviews with Lord Leverhulme in regard to settlement in the West of Scotland, and I should like to express my appreciation of the concessions recently made in regard to his farms in Lewis, concessions which, I think, have done a great deal to solve the difficulties which previously existed on those farms. I will only add that if Lord Leverhulme thinks for a moment that I or the Government have not assisted him promptly in carrying out his scheme, he is labouring under a complete misapprehension.
My hon. Friend the Member for Perthshire (Mr. Gardiner) spoke about the Commission which the hon. Member for Linlithgow proposed and made observations upon it which I bore in mind in replying, as I did a few moments ago, on that point. He also spoke of the value of co-operation, and I quite agree. He said there were difficulties, and there are, but whether, as I said a moment ago, it is possible in Scotland to develop that very useful principle, is a question upon which I shall further consult with the Board. My hon. Friend went on to deal with foot-and-mouth disease, and there I. though, with all respect to you, Mr. Chairman, that he was treading on delicate ground. inasmuch as any alteration in the principles which are followed in that matter would require legislation. Therefore, I am afraid I should get into trouble if I followed my hon. Friend in his pilgrimage in that direction. He further spoke of the importance of plant raising and research on similar lines. I quite recognise it, and I have recognised it to this extent, that I think I am right in saying I have authorised the Board to make a grant of £22,300 on a pound for pound basis for the encouragement of that particular line of research, and were it possible I should like to assist in the development of that kind of research.
My hon. Friend behind me, the Member for Lanark (Mr. R. McLaren), spoke about the training of men in agriculture. I have already dealt with that matter. In regard to the abandoned schemes at Raasay and Rona, I should be grateful if he would send me particulars of any such cases, when I shall have inquiry made. I am unaware of the cases to which he referred, and I have had no notice of them. He also dealt with the wide and difficult question of emigration. I will not follow into that. There are considerations, as I pointed out in my opening statement, on both sides. There is, on the one hand, the difficulty and danger of impoverishing our native country by parting with some of the best blood in it, and there is, on the other hand, the extension and expansion of our Empire, to which none of us can be blind, and it is difficult to hold a balance between those conflicting considerations.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardine (Lieut.-Colonel A. Murray), to whom I am grateful for his appreciative observations, made, some criticism on the proposal of a Commission. I do not pursue that further, as I have already told the Committee my views in regard to it. He also dealt with what he called the reckless and rather wasteful extravagance of the present administration in directions far remote from land settlement. I am afraid that there also he has been more successful than I should probably be if I endeavoured to follow him in that particular controversy, but, so far from admitting the charge, I, of course, deny it. He then proceeded to deal with a matter obviously in order, namely, the organisation of small holdings in Scotland. He asked me what the provision was in regard to the amalgamation of those two societies. Negotiations are still proceeding for the amalgamation of the two smallholders societies, but I think it would be very inexpedient—and I hope my hon. and gallant Friend on reflection will agree—that I should say anything here at the present moment which might prejudice the negotiations which are still going on. I am very hopeful of the result. I am endeavouring to do my best to bring about a satisfactory solution of what my hon. and gallant Friend must admit is an extremely difficult situation, and with that end in view I hope he will
excuse me from saying anything more than that negotiations are still going on and that I hope they will soon be concluded. In regard to present facilities, -my information is that the Board are doing everything they can to further that movement. They have appointed an organiser, who is going round and endeavouring to promote any arrangement with that end in view.
8.0 P.M.
My hon. and gallant Friend will also remember that the Board is now in a position to make loans itself under recent legislation, and is doing it, and the need for such organisation is by no means so great as it was before the Board had that power. But my hon. and gallant Friend may be quite certain that I am alive to the desirability of these facilities being provided, and that everything that is necessary and expedient, according to my information, has been done in that direction. With regard to what my hon. and gallant Friend said on the subject of education and research, I can assure him that the whole sum of £150,000 is being devoted to these purposes, and to these purposes only, and at the present moment a scheme is awaiting my sanction allocating that money to the various activities which are comprised under these two heads.
As regards deer forests, I have explained the situation with regard to the Bill. A Bill has been drafted, and I am afraid, looking to the situation at this late stage of the Session, it will not be possible to deal with it before we separate. I think, in the circumstances, we shall not lose any valuable time if the Bill be introduced, as I hope it will be shortly after we reassemble. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire (Major M. Wood) talked about the time limit which had been imposed for the applications of ex-service men. That time limit was not imposed by me. It was imposed as the result of the decision of the Cabinet in connection with the inquiry which I said was held in January, 1921, and that decision ran in these terms:
No applicant will be eligible for the preference given to ex-service men unless his application has been received by the Board on or before 31st March, 1921.
That was a decision which, I think, the Cabinet was well entitled to give, acting, I conceive, on the recommendation of the
Committee of which I was a member. I think it is entirely legal, but if my hon. and gallant Friend can convince me that it is illegal, I will see that it is reconsidered. My hon. and gallant Friend next complained that the rents had not been fixed in 178 cases. I explained, in my opening statement, why in these cases the rents had not been fixed, and I thought I showed that I am at present in negotiation with the Treasury with a view of ascertaining whether these rents, which were fixed at the peak of prices, can be in any way abated. Does my hon. and gallant Friend desire that I should cease my efforts with the Treasury, and that the rents should be fixed at a sum which I think would be prohibitive? His argument on this matter was so petulant, if he will allow me to say so, that I feel rather disposed to allow the Treasury to settle it now, but I can assure him the efforts I am making are entirely in the interests of the smallholders for whom he speaks, and, unless these efforts are successful, rents will be fixed at a figure which these smallholders will find it very difficult to meet. I hope he believes me when I say that the only reason these rents are not fixed is the interest of the smallholders. My hon. and gallant Friend criticised the agreement which the Board entered into with these men. Surely he docs not suggest that the Board's intention is to rack-rent or to swindle these men? Nothing is further from their intention, and, at the present moment, I know of no complaint which has been made with regard to the agreements entered into. None have reached me, and I am not aware of any having reached the Board. One would think from my hon. and gallant Friend's criticisms that the Board, the tenants and landowners were at arm's length, and that the interest of the Board was to rack-rent these men and outwit them.

Major M. WOOD: Why not submit the thing to the Land Court? It is there for that purpose.

Mr. MUNRO: I think the decision of the Board will be just as favourable to smallholders as a decision of the Land Court would be. If my hon. and gallant Friend can bring me a single case where the Board has rack-rented or outwitted an applicant for land, and fixed a rent which, under the circumstances, he would have
been well advised not to undertake to pay, I shall be very much surprised. My hon. and gallant Friend also referred to the Deer Forests Report, and the land which the Deer Forests Commission reported was available for small holdings in deer forests. I am going into the matter now, but if my experience in the past teaches me anything, it teaches me that the compelling influence which precludes the acquiring of the land of deer forests is that it is far too expensive. There is the question of expense to which he referred. The law would have to be altered in that matter if he had his way, but, under existing conditions, there is to be no alteration of the law now, or any immediate prospect of it, I am afraid. The situation is to-day what it has been for a long time past, namely, that this deer forest land is prohibitive in price. My hon. Friend the Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. F. C. Thomson) referred to the Rowatt Research Institute. I fully appreciate the generosity of the donor who has contributed so handsomely to the work of this very useful institution. My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Sir H. Cowan), finally in a speech which I quite appreciate, because he recognised the difficult circumstances under which all these operations are being carried on to-day, referred, first of all, to grass sickness in horses, and to motor-car taxation, which illustrates the variety of subjects with which any unfortunate holder of my office is called upon to deal, with or without notice. On the question of grass sickness, I have had interviews with my hon. Friend before now, and I think he knows that an investigation has been carried on by the Highland Agricultural Society through their consulting chemist, with the assistance of another chemist in bacteriology. The Board gave a grant towards the investigations in 1921–22, and the scrum which has been referred to was prepared in the laboratory and supplied to the veterinary surgeons in the districts where the disease was reported, and the veterinary surgeons consider that the results from that serum may be regarded as satisfactory. Investigations are still proceeding, and my hon. Friend may rest assured that we are carefully watching all developments.
With regard to the motor-car tax, I have a fairly wide jurisdiction, but it does not cover that point. All I can do
—and I willingly give that undertaking—will be to convey to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the views my hon. Friend has expressed in order that they may receive consideration from my right hon. Friend, who has jurisdiction which I have not. I apologise to the Committee for speaking at such length, but I have endeavoured to cover as well as I could the numerous topics which have been raised, and now

CLASS VII.

SCOTTISH BOARD OF HEALTH.

[Mr. BOWERMAN in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £812,422, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Scottish

that that has been done, I venture to express the hope that the Amendment, with which my right hon. Friend opposite concluded his speech, may be withdrawn, and we may get this Vote.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £155,853, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes. 21; Noes, 101.

Division No. 232.]
AYES
[8.12 p.m.


Amman, Charles George
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Banton, George
Kennedy, Thomas
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wignall, James


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Galbraith, Samuel
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Robertson, John



Hayward, Evan
Sexton, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Irving, Dan
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Mr. Hogge and Major Mackenzie Wood.




NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Gilbert, James Daniel
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Glyn, Major Ralph
Pratt, John William


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Rae, Sir Henry N.


Barnston, Major Harry
Greenwood, William (Stockport]
Renwick, Sir George


Barrand, A. R.
Gregory, Holman
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Bellairs, Commander Car[...]yon W.
Gro[...]g, Colonel Sir James William
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Betterton, Henry B.
Hailwood, Augustine
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Rodger, A. K.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Scott, A M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Briggs, Harold
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hinds, John
Simm, M. T.


Brown, Major D. C.
Hood, Sir Joseph
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Bruton, Sir James
Hopkins, John W. W.
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Sugden, W. H.


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Johnstone, Joseph
Sutherland, Sir William


Clough, Sir Robert
Kidd, James
Taylor, J.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lorden, John William
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Lort-Williams, J.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Cope, Major William
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Wallace, J.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Mallalieu, Frederick William
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Edge, Captain Sir William
Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Wise, Frederick


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Morrison, Hugh
Wolmer, Viscount


Fell, Sir Arthur
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)
Worsfold, T. Cato


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Neal, Arthur



Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gardiner, James
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Mr. McCurdy and Lieut. Colonel


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Sir J. Gilmour.


Original Question put, and agreed to.

Board of Health, including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to local Authorities, etc., sundry contributions and Grants in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, 1911 to 1921, certain Grants-in-Aid, and certain Special Services arising out of the War."— [NOTE: £900,000 has been voted on account.]

Mr. MUNRO: I propose to say a very few words in regard to this Vote. I cannot claim for one moment that we have solved the problem of housing, or have made good the shortage of houses that
existed in Scotland. We can, however, at least claim that something material has been done to alleviate the deplorable conditions that prevail. Let me remind the Committee in a sentence or two the position of matters before the War. The Royal Commission on Housing stated that the pre-War needs of Scotland were 235,900—that is the additional number required to bring housing in Scotland up to a satisfactory standard. This, no doubt, was an ideal which it became our business to strive to attain. Undoubtedly the Royal Commission set up a very high standard to reach which must be the work of years. I want the Committee to survey with me for a moment what has been already accomplished in the few years in which the Government has been dealing with this matter.
To-day 25,550 houses have been built, are building, or planned, and if we add to that figure the houses building under the private builders' subsidy, estimated at 2,400, and 400 under the special crofters' scheme, we get a total of 28,350. The Committee may be interested to know the progress that has been made since December 1920 At the end of that month the houses completed numbered 927. At the end of December, 1921, they numbered 5,287. At the end of June, 1922, they numbered 10,253. That is to say, the numbers in 1922 were double the largely increased number of 1921. This cannot be described as a large contribution to the housing needs of the country, but having regard to the conditions which have prevailed, the shortage of labour, the high prices of material, the difficulty of transport, and so on, we may, I think, congratulate ourselves what under these exceptional conditions has been achieved. I hope that future achievements will be in line with what has been done in the past. Apart from the question of the actual shortage of houses, there is also the quality and condition of the existing houses to be considered.
Slums are a standing reproach to us all. Many houses to-day, as we know only too well, are quite unfit for human habitation. In some cases where closing orders have been made by the authorities the orders have not been put into force but have been suspended, for the simple reason that families occupying these houses would otherwise have to be turned into the street. When for financial
reasons we called a halt in the operations of the housing programme, £30,000 per year was allocated to Scotland to enable something to be done in the direction of clearing the slum areas, and re-housing those who were dispossessed by reason of that operation. The Scottish Board of Health have been in communication and consultation with the local authorities as to the beet method of utilising this annual grant, which is an additional contribution to the housing problem. The object of these conferences was to frame schemes under which the money could be expended to the best advantage and made to go as far as possible. Only if the local authorities had lent a hand could this satisfactory thing be accomplished. We can only deal in this way effectively with what after all, I would remind the Committee, is the particular and imperative duty of these local authorities. It is proposed that after schemes for this purpose have been approved by the Scottish Board of Health, the local authorities should have a free hand, and that they should be untrammelled by any inspectors or representatives of the central authority—that they should carry out their schemes in their own way once approval has been granted by the Scottish Board of Health. It is proposed in this matter to shake off all this and allow the local authorities, once the scheme has been approved, to carry it out according to their own discretion. The contribution of the State is supplemented by the contribution of the local authorities. The sum which is allotted to Scotland is certainly not large, and if distributed over the whole of Scotland would soon be frittered away without any substantial results being obtained. I am sure that those interested in this matter in Scotland will lend a hand in carrying out the scheme of the Board of Health. The Glasgow Corporation already has formulated a comprehensive scheme for the clearance of slums and the rehousing of the people who will be dispossessed. This has been done on the understanding that the corporation will participate in the Government grant.
The first instalment for rehousing in Glasgow is estimated to be £350,000. The land has been approved by the Scottish Board, and an annual grant will be made to Glasgow. A solution of that problem is vital to the well-being
of the community. If the local authorities are prepared to provide a reasonable part of the expenditure required, the Board of Health will be able to approve a scheme involving £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 sterling. This, coupled with the houses provided under the subsidised scheme, will materially add to the decency, comfort and contentment of our more humbly circumstanced population. That is all I propose to say in opening this Debate, and the point which will be raised in the course of the discussion will be dealt with either by myself or the Parliamentary Secretary (Mr. Pratt) after speeches have been made by Scottish Members.

Mr. WALLACE: I have listened with interest to the statement made by the Secretary for Scotland. If my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) feels that he is entitled to speak before me, because he is sitting on the Front Bench, I am quite willing to give way to him. The Secretary for Scotland has always taken a very deep and sympathetic interest in the question of Scottish housing, but I wish his statement to-night had been a little more elaborate. He has not said very much on the general question of housing in Scotland, and I cannot forget at the present time that all Scottish Members in this House at the last election gave very definite pledges on the question of housing in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman referred in his speech to the Royal Commission, and he rightly said that, not the ideal, but the minimum requirement for Scotland, according to the Commission, was 236,000 houses. I am not aware that that estimate has been seriously criticised, and we must regard the shortage which has naturally arisen since that time as something which should be added to that number.
What I did miss from the speech of my right hon. Friend was any declaration of policy with regard to the future. According to the right hon. Gentleman's figures 28,550 houses are to be built in order to complete the present programme. What I should like to know from the Secretary for Scotland is what the Government propose to do when that programme has been completed. I was one of those hon. Members who supported the Government when they called a halt in regard to the housing scheme last year, because I
thought it was a policy of futility to place further contracts on the market when there was such a shortage of labour, and when the cost of building materials was so high. In this respect I think we ought to thank the present Minister of Health for taking such a prominent part in regard to this matter, and for deciding that the policy of his predecessor was wrong. It was stated, when the policy of the Government was reversed, that it did not mean any real alteration in the housing policy, except that a halt was being made on account of the extremely high prices. The Secretary for Scotland, in a speech made in this House in reply to some observations of my own, said:
Moreover, there is no scrapping of the housing programme, and no refusal to resume it when financial considerations are more favourable. All we propose to do, as I have said. before, is to mark time, and call a halt in approving tenders until sufficient progress has been made in regard to the houses now under construction.
I supported the Secretary for Scotland in the policy which he announced from the Treasury Bench, but the right hon. Gentleman has possibly left it until a later stage in this Debate to make some announcement of the future policy in regard to housing when the present programme has been completed. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the conditions to which he looked forward at that time have now, to a very large extent, been fulfilled. He has referred to the fact that last year there was a scarcity of labour in the building trade, but that difficulty has now been removed. There is no longer a scarcity of labour, in fact, there is actually unemployment in the building trade to-day. The right hon. Gentleman's other requirements have also been fulfilled, because prices both of material and of labour have been very much reduced. In 1920, when the Government decided upon this housing scheme, prices were excessively high both for labour and raw material. Since 1920, however, there has been a reduction in prices of over 50 per cent., and houses which then were costing something in the region of £1,200 can to-day be built for about £500. I think these figures are approximately correct.
Since the right hon. Gentleman made his statement last year, when the Government decided to call a halt in their housing policy, prices have been reduced by 40 per cent. The question I wish to put
now with the utmost respect is how the new position in the price of labour and raw materials is going to affect the programme of the Government in regard to housing in Scotland, I am sure that my right hon. Friend realises the urgent and pressing importance of this subject. He has mentioned Glasgow and what is to be done for the slum areas there. What are the requirements of Glasgow? I believe that Glasgow demands as a minimum something like 57,000 houses. How many are provided under the Government scheme? Somewhere about 5,000. If my information is inaccurate, my right hon. Friend will no doubt correct me at a later stage. It is my belief at present, in regard to the figures for Glasgow, that the houses to be supplied do not represent 10 per cent, of what is demanded by the City Corporation. I remember very well interviewing my right hon. Friend with a deputation from Glasgow on this very question, and I feel sure that the case which was put to him with regard to housing on that occasion in Glasgow was irresistible. He will admit that some further consideration must be given to the requirements of that great city.
It is not only Glasgow that I can speak for in this matter. I can speak also for my own constituency, for Dumfermline, for Cowdenbeath and for Lochgelly where the housing requirements are of a most pressing and urgent character at the present time. There we have only a very limited programme of work, but it is now being held up and in the case which I put before the Scottish Board of Health recently with regard to Lochgelly we found ourselves up against a blank wall. It is my belief that this is really a national question. From the point of view of political economy, I always have been and will be an individualist, but when we consider this housing question and the abnormal circumstances arising out of the War, especially in regard to our own country, I feel it is far more important to keep in view the national point of view so far as the health of the population is concerned. Let me state in a word what I mean.
I am in favour all the time of a Conservative policy in finance, and I urgently support all measures which make for economy. But I want real economy. I heard of a case the other day in which a family were extremely anxious to have a three-apartment house and were prepared
to pay for it, because the daughter in the family was suffering from tuberculosis and the parents were desirous that the unfortunate girl should have a room to herself where she might be relatively segregated in the family. It was quite impossible, however, to find a three-apartment house and they had to take a two-apartment house. What will be the result? It is impossible to segregate the girl under these conditions, and the chances are that other members of the family may be affected by the same disease and you will have charges made upon the State for treatment in sanatoria which will altogether outweigh the additional expense of providing suitable housing accommodation. I think these are considerations which ought to weigh with my right hon. Friend, and no effort should be spared to urge upon the Cabinet, who, after all, have got responsibility in this matter, the extremely pressing need of Scotland, so far as housing is concerned.
While I am speaking on this subject I cannot but refer to one part of Scotland which I know intimately. In connection with my own constituency there is in Dumfermline a district called Bungalow City. The word bungalow conjures up a beautiful picture of a low, charming, rambling dwelling, surrounded by shrubs and trees and flowers, with scarlet runners creeping up the wall and clustering round a rustic porch. These conditions are not fulfilled in Bungalow City, which is a district entirely composed of corrugated iron dwellings, mean, sordid, and comfortless erections, in which the employés of the Admiralty are housed. I know my right hon. Friend has not the sole responsibility for the housing conditions there, but the Ministry of Health has a certain measure of responsibility, and I wish he would exercise the functions of his great office and have these dwellings replaced by buildings in which men can live in decency and in comfort.
Since I have had the pleasure of speaking first on this Vote, I am not going to abuse the privilege. I only want to refer to one other matter before I resume my seat. In connection with housing in Scotland certain provision has been made at Stornoway for the supply of building materials to crofters there by the Board of Agriculture under powers duly vested in that Department. I am informed this
depot established at Stornoway for the sole purpose of supplying building materials at cost price to crofters —a policy I support—is not confining its operations to crofters, but is selling these materials to all and sundry. I am against all kinds of Government trading, but this is a particularly vicious case so far as my information goes. There is a firm in Stornoway which is in the building material trade, and has up till now supplied its various clients, at I suppose reasonable rates, with the goods they require. My information is that now this Government depot established at Stornoway is cutting the trade entirely away from this private firm and is supplying to all-comers any building materials they want, sometimes under cost price. If that information is correct, I respectfully protest against this usurpation by the Government of the rights of private trading firms. In this case, whether it is the Scottish Office itself or the Board of Agriculture, my protest is equally strong. I will not detain the House further except to say that I hope my right hon. Friend will realise that his statement is incomplete, that the housing question in Scotland cannot remain where he has left it, and that some strong effort must be made by him and his officials to remove the stigma and blot of bad housing from Scotland.

Mr. HOGGE: I have listened to the very interesting speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bungalow City. I am glad he happened to catch your eye first. He has put his case with a great deal of ability. We hear much about the privilege which certain Members have in regard to speaking, but I would be the last man to take any offence with regard to the question of priority. There is one thing that the Scottish Members have some right to complain about on an occasion of this kind, and that is, although we offer very adequate housing accommodation to English, Welsh, and Irish M.P.'s, we are left in the position of presenting this spectacle to the public—

Mr. JOHNSTONE: Where are the Scottish Members?

Mr. HOGGE: That is a very pertinent question, but at the present moment there are very few other than Scottish Members present to take part in the Debate.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: And very few Scottish, either.

Mr. HOGGE: I know, but my hon. Friend has done his duty like some of the rest of us, and he ought to be content with that. The point I was putting was that, although we provide adequate accommodation for our colleagues, they do not come to see the way in which we run our own country. I have put down an Amendment to reduce this Vote for some of the reasons stated by my hon. Friend, and for others which I shall advance before I sit down. This question of housing in Scotland is one in regard to which even my hon. Friend, who usually supports the Government—is, as a matter of fact, a supporter of the Government—will admit that the Government did make definite promises, with which he associated himself, and with which we all associated ourselves; and if there is one part of the United Kingdom which is worse off in regard to housing conditions than another, it is Scotland. I remember that Sir George McCrae, who was my predecessor in representing East Edinburgh, and who is now one of the most respected and most efficient officials in the Scottish Office, made a pilgrimage through Scotland delivering speeches on the housing question: and I used to cut out those references in order that some day one might bring them forward as efforts on the part of an efficient official in connection with the actual housing conditions which, unfortunately, obtain not only in our crowded urban areas in Scotland, but in many of our rural districts. I see my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Dr. Murray) in his place to-night, as he always is when any Scottish, or even British, business is being considered. I remember spending what I thought might-be a holiday in his constituency, and being impressed with the fact, beyond all others, that in an island where there was ample fresh air and abundant sea people were housed in conditions in which (animals would not be housed in many respects. The problem, therefore, is one not only of our urban but of our rural areas.
The problem to which we are asked to address ourselves is whether the Government, represented by the Scottish Office, and at the present moment by my hon. Friend who presides over the Board of Health in the Scottish Office, are satisfied
that they are making their promises effective. Are we satisfied that they are making sufficient progress in dealing with the housing problem? If not, we are entitled, as we always are in the House of Commons, to take the effective means of deciding that problem in our Division Lobbies. Briefly, what is the problem? My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Wallace) has stated quite succinctly and briefly certain of the reasons, but he did not state the figures of the problem, and I think that they ought to be as often as possible put on record. The Government, under schemes submitted by local authorities and approved by my hon. Friend who presides over the Board of Health, agreed that it was necessary to build 115,057 houses in Scotland. That was the figure that was to make up the shortage, and, as my hon. Friend pointed out, is at any rate 120,000 short of what the Royal Commission said was necessary—and that Royal Commission hold its inquiry before the War. Even the maximum suggested by the Royal Commission, therefore, was not touched by what the Government promised.
Now let us see what has been achieved. Up to 31st December, 1921, the tenders for houses that were approved by the Board of Health in Scotland were 21,344. That is less than one-fifth of the requirements, and that was the position on 31st December, 1921. Moreover, those houses were not then built; let that be borne in mind. That means that the needs in Scotland were only met to the extent of about one in four, or 25 per cent. The marvellous thing about that was that the increase during the year was so slight. From December, 1920, to December, 1921, the increase only represented 3,054 houses. That, practically, was the achievement of one year. Anybody, certainly any Scottish Member who is listening to me at the moment, will agree that that was a mere drop in the bucket so far as the housing necessities of Scotland were concerned. There may be reasons, but we shall all agree that it was a mere drop in the bucket. The number of houses completed and ready for occupation in Scotland is now given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland as 5,287. As a matter of fact-although I do not make any particular point of it— those 5,287 houses include, as my hon.
Friend will agree at once, a number of houses which have been acquired by local authorities, which did require reconstruction, but which did not require to be built; so that the figure of 5,287 does not really represent an actual building programme, although it does represent housing accommodation.
What does this mean? It means in brief—I am quite willing to be challenged on the subject if I am wrong—that, as a result of two years' achievement by the Board of Health in Scotland, they have succeeded in providing 5,287 houses towards the New Jerusalem. There are 5,287 homes for heroes in Scotland, and we have just ceased discussing the lamentable failure of the Secretary for Scotland, through the Board of Agriculture, even to provide land for the men in Scotland who fought in the War. Now that we come to the question of housing, we find that two years' achievement amounts to the miserable figure of 5,287. See what that means. It means that, according to the Government's own statements—not our statements, not the statements of the Board's critics, but their own statements —there are 126,614 families living to-day in inadequate housing accommodation or in overcrowded conditions in Scotland. That is a simple sum in subtraction with regard to what the Government promised and what the Government have done. To impress it a little more upon the imagination of my colleagues who are present, if you take, as I think will be agreed is quite fair, four as an average for each family requiring housing accommodation in Scotland, that represents one-ninth of the total population of Scotland. Therefore, after two years, this Government, which promised us this housing accommodation, which we have been led to believe is the Government that cannot be replaced in any possible way, and that, if we are deprived of its guidance in national affairs, we shall go to red ruin—this great Government, with all those qualities, can provide 5,000 houses and allow one-ninth of the people whose votes they filched at the General Election to remain unhoused. The Secretary for Scotland goes on his way rejoicing. The President of the Ministry of Health, who intervenes so seldom in our Debates, to our unmitigated regret, seems to regard that as something which we ought to put up with because it has come from a Government of this kind. What are the reasons given
by the Government for this state of affairs? In the first place it was the reason of economy. It certainly does not lie in my mouth to complain about economy in any national object. The others were mentioned by my hon. Friend, but he did not give the figures which I have here which will amplify and emphasise his argument. The other was the shortage and the high prices of materials and the shortage and the cost of labour. Those things were supposed to make a great difference to the housing problem.
9.0 P.M.
What is the position now? On the first I think we are all agreed. Apart altogether from any desire that any of us have to see any social reform accomplished, there is a primary thing which we are more concerned in, and that is the financial stability and recontruction of our own financial affairs, and until that is achieved the Government have a case in trying to economise. I make the Government a present of that, because I could not do otherwise. But with regard to the other two points this has happened. The supply of materials has increased and prices have fallen, the supply of labour has greatly increased and the wage rates have fallen. If you want any evidence of that you will get it in the pages of your own Report. There were employed in January, 1921, 7,206 men on building, which had increased to 14,318 in December. The number had doubled in the year. If that is so it is equally true, from what we know of the amount of unemployment in the country, that there is available labour for building, and therefore, with materials and wages reduced, it is possible for the Scottish Office to resume the housing programme which they suspended a year ago. They may not be able to do it to the same extent. They have got to face their task. I have tried to put it into a matter of six questions to my hon. Friend. I should like him to tell us what are now the prices of the various types of houses as compared with January, 1921. My hon. Friend gave us some figures, which I accept from him, but it would be an advantage to us to know if the Department has accumulated these facts and what was the difference in those prices. I should also like to ask him how many men are now employed on house building I have the figures from
the Report here—14,000 in 1921. This is July, 1922. How many men are now employed? Third, how many men are still unemployed in the building trade? That is an essential fact for us to know in order to judge fairly of the position of the Government in this matter. Fourth, have any recent tenders been received by the Ministry of Health in Scotland, and, if so, what are the prices? Fifth, do those prices indicate that houses can now be built without any substantial charge either to the Treasury or to the local rates? That is a very important point to get to know. We cannot get the facts.

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: What does the hon. Member mean by the last question?

Mr. HOGGE: The Scottish Board of Health are accumulating from time to time the prices of materials. They are also accumulating from time to time the number of men who are unemployed in the building trade. They are also receiving tenders for the building of houses in schemes. Can they tell us from those facts whether prices for the building of houses has reached such a figure that you can have the housing shortage met without any substantial charge either to the Treasury or to the local rate—that is whether we can do without a Govern-men subsidy? If we can, how many houses can be built on that basis? My last question would be, are there any facilities now given to local authorities to obtain loans at easy rates? The rate of interest has fallen considerably, and although I am not any extra in financial questions, I have sense enough to know that that is so. Money is cheaper, and the Government Department ought to meet the local authorities in the matter of loans and, if they can, easy loans, so that houses can be built on an economic basis. I have tried in these few remarks to put the case without controversy. I have tried to put it purely as a business problem, because those of us who have been brought up in. Scotland, and who are Scotsmen in sentiment as well as everything else, are anxious about the housing condition of the people in our own country, and we want a solution rather than the satisfaction of scoring any party advantage.
There is a last point I want to make. I want to deal with the £30,000 that was
given for the clearance of slum areas. I tried to follow what the Secretary of Scotland said about that. His speech, unfortunately, was very short. I do not complain of his absence now because he has sat in the Committee all day and is entitled to a little rest at this precise moment. I am not quite clear as to how far that amount is available, and the purposes for which it is to be used. On pages 109–10 of the Report, this subject is dealt with in a statement with regard to the grant for the improvement of insanitary areas. I notice on the top of page 110 there are particulars of a scheme for Edinburgh. There are two schemes, one is for the Edinburgh improvement scheme and the other for a Dumfries improvement scheme. I will leave the Dumfries scheme to the hon. Member for Dumfries if and when he turns up in the discussion, and I will deal with Edinburgh, which city I have the honour to represent, and will ask a few questions about that improvement scheme.
It is a typical case, and there are hon. Members present who represent areas in which the same conditions prevail. They will notice that this scheme covers areas in the Cowgate and Grassmarket districts of Edinburgh and contemplate the acquisition of properties comprising 502 dwelling-houses and 47 shops. The cost of the scheme is estimated at, approximately, £255,000. I draw attention to the cost for this reason, that the amount available for the whole of Scotland is £30,000 per year. Here we have—I am making no complaint, but only giving an illustration—a little patchwork of a slum area improvement, dealing only with 500 dwelling-houses, which in Scotland will not mean more than 20 tenements, and the cost is going to be eight times the annual sum allocated for the whole of Scotland. We must protest against the inadequacy of the provision for dealing with slum areas in Scotland. It may be that it does not express the intention of the Government, but at the same time we must recognise how absolutely impossible it must be in Scotland for many years to come to deal with slum areas until a proper financial provision is made. I hope some answers may be forthcoming to the questions I have put.
In a Bill which has been introduced into this House there is a proposal to
alter the constitution of the Board in Scotland. While that will not affect the present membership, because there are many members to-day whose time has not yet run out, it is rather important to those of us who are still to remain in the representation of Scotland that the new constitution of that Board should be safeguarded as far as possible, and I hope that in any reply that may be made to-night some indication may be given that, at any rate, the distinctly housing side of reform in Scotland, which includes national health insurance, which is in itself a product of bad housing, shall be adequately safeguarded. I have tried to put the case quite impartially, and I hope fairly. It is information we want and progress we want in housing in Scotland. I would rather see a few more extra thousand tenants better housed in Scotland than attempt to secure any party advantage over the Government.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: We are all agreed as to the present deplorable condition of housing in Scotland, and how little has been done to alleviate those conditions. At the same time, I feel impressed with the fact that the Government were quite justified in suspending the housing schemes. The costs have gone up beyond all proportions, and I look with the greatest misgivings to the ultimate issue of the financial problems involved in the housing scheme that we have in existence in Scotland. It is true that somewhere about 236,000 houses were set forth by the Housing Commission as being required to meet the want for housing accommodation in Scotland, and the Government themselves outlined a programme for Scotland of 115,000 houses. At the present time the total number of houses built under housing schemes, by private parties and plane approved, which does not mean that the houses are built, is less than 30,000. I know of housing schemes in my own county and constituency where the ultimate outlook fills me with the greatest possible misgivings. I can visualise a very admirable housing scheme in my own constituency, carried out on well-thought-out plans, with good houses, but the cost has been quite beyond what any reasonable man would contemplate for the erection of houses for the working classes. On these houses there is an annual loss of at least £50,000. That is to say, that the difference between the economic rent and
the rent now being paid by the tenants amounts to a loss on each cottage to not less than £50 per year. How in the face of that could we expect the Government to go on with housing schemes? Wages have fallen, and I know from representations made to me that the tenants living in that particular housing area have the greatest possible difficulty in paying the modified rents.
If the Government contemplate resuming house-building operations they ought to review the position from an entirely new angle. When they begin to resume the consideration of house-building schemes in Scotland, they should try, as far as possible, to divest themselves from State-controlled schemes, and should give greater freedom to the local authorities. I am not very much in favour of subsidies or grants in aid, but I do think that during this pressing problem it would be far better if the Government would give special encouragement to municipal authorities and private enterprise by granting subsidies or grants in aid rather than continuing the State control of housing schemes. Wages have fallen, costs have come down, the cost of erecting houses is now far more moderate than it was a year or two ago, but the moment the Government commences again to control housing schemes, and to control the raw materials that are required, prices will go up. I therefore urge the Government to give consideration as soon as possible to the question of divesting themselves of control of house building in Scotland and seek to work up some other solution of the problem.
What the Government ought to do is to lay down a programme whereby so many houses may be provided each year for a number of years to come, invite local authorities and private builders to make application for grants in aid towards the required number, let the Government insist upon certain fundamental conditions as to the requirements of the houses to be erected, and leave it to the local authorities to work out their own scheme in their own way, and leave the whole responsibility on them. The sooner the Government can divest themselves of responsibility for providing houses, the better for the provision of houses in Scotland. I look with the greatest apprehension to the Government resuming their
house-building operations. While the low cost of building is in their favour just now, I believe that fuller advantage would be obtained by municipalities and private enterprise than by the Government.
Therefore I would urge that the Government should review the whole situation, the whole scheme of house building in Scotland from another angle, and not endeavour to resume the old practice and the old scheme which increased the cost enormously, produced uneconomic houses, and involved the State in enormous liability which it is difficult to get rid of. The State will ultimately have to cancel that liability in some way. The only way I can think of is to wipe it all out as a bad debt, hand over the existing houses to the local authorities and let them make the best of it. I have studied housing in Scotland for many years. I have some experience on housing committees, I know the conditions of my own constituency, and the whole matter fills me with the greatest apprehension, because I feel that, as the years roll on, these housing schemes, which are in existence to-day, will be a source of weakness and grave financial liability which it will be difficult to discharge. The sooner we can relieve the State from that liability the better, and the earlier that we put the responsibility on local authorities and private builders, the better for housing conditions in Scotland.

Mr. J. ROBERTSON: Earlier in the discussion a Scottish Member complained about the short time allotted for the discussion of Scottish Estimates. One remedy for that probably is that we should discuss these Estimates in a Parliament of our own in Scotland, but if I pursued that subject I might come in conflict with the Chair. What I deplore most in a discussion like this to-night is the small attendance of Members on these benches, irrespective of party.

Mr. G. MURRAY: What about the Labour party?

Mr. ROBERTSON: Never mind the Labour party. I said irrespective of party. Hon. Members are always looking for faults in the Labour party. If they would look for faults in their own party they would find them more readily. I have seen these benches crowded on far
less important questions than housing. To me housing is one of the most important questions that can be discussed. I have seen these benches crowded when War was being discussed, but more people die because of bad housing than are killed on the battlefield. I am afraid that, in discussing this question of bad housing, we are apt to lose sight of the problem by putting forward what has been done. I am not inclined to blame any party for the bad conditions of housing, nor am I inclined to blame the Coalition Government because they have not created a new heaven and a new earth since 1918. I have said before that bad housing exists very largely because of the low ideal on the part of those who provide the houses and the low ideal on the part of the people who are compelled to live in the houses. The most hopeful sign at present for improved housing in Scotland, or anywhere else, is not the number of houses that have been erected, but the public opinion that has been created in favour of better housing and against allowing the bad old conditions that existed in the years that are past and gone.
I am bound, however, to contrast what the Government can do when it wants houses for war purposes compared with what it has done when it wants houses for other purposes. During the War we wanted houses for munition workers. Inside of six months, in the area from which I come, there were 700 houses erected for munition workers, and in the three years we have been able to erect only 600 houses under the housing scheme. I do not think that the two things compare very favourably. But I am inclined to think from my observation that the conditions are worse in 1922, after all that has been done, than they were in 1918. I want to say that because if one reads in the "OFFICIAL REPORT"—a very excellent report—or listens to, the speeches about the number of houses that have been erected one gets an entirely different impression. I spent ten days during my last vacation living among my own people, going from house to house in the mining villages, and, knowing the housing conditions as I do in the part of the country from which I come for over 30 years, I say that the housing conditions in the West of Scotland, and in the County of Lanark are worse to-day than ever I remember at any time during that period.
I am glad to see the hon. Member for North Lanark (Mr. McLaren) in his place.

Mr. R. McLAREN: I am always here.

Mr. ROBERTSON: In a previous discussion on this question I pointed out what had happened in existing conditions during an epidemic. It is very difficult sometimes to believe what a single apartment is in Scotland. It is the only apartment they have. Within a mile of the door of the hon. Member for North Lanark (Mr. R. McLaren) during the influenza epidemic there were, at one time, five dead bodies in a single room.

Mr. McLAREN: I have made inquiries with reference to that, and I find that the hon. Member's statement is absolutely incorrect.

Mr. ROBERTSON: I am not going to dispute it. I prefer to take the Register of Deaths rather than any other statement. I can produce the proof. It is no uncommon thing to find one dead body, at least, in the room where children live, eat and sleep. No one should endeavour to minimise the bad housing conditions that exist in the West of Scotland. During my visits I found, in one case, as many as 11 persons living in one room. I found that the people are rack-rented. Houses that were condemned as unfit for human habitation, and would have been scrapped but for the housing shortage, are being let at much too high a rental. I am now speaking of an area with which I am well acquainted.
The present needs of Lanarkshire are that we want over 5,000 houses. We have got 400. For every house built there are at least seven applications, and for each of the houses likely to be built within a short period there will be the same number of applications. Those are figures which I have obtained from the secretary for the Middle Ward. Our council sot their faces against the taking in of lodgers in the new houses. We had to break away from that principle, and because of the bad housing accommodation, the new county council houses are about as overcrowded now as ever the miners' houses were. There are 1,605 overcrowded houses in that area alone. Three thousand closing orders have been obtained, but the houses cannot be closed, because if that were done the people would have nowhere to go. In that area,
which is largely a mining area, the public authorities state that it is almost impossible, in many cases, for them to put the Public Health Act into operation. It has to be entirely suspended because of the housing conditions.
I have been in consultation with those responsible, who have done a great deal in that area to get on with the housing scheme. We ought to take into consideration what they suggest would be the best and quickest method of relieving the insanitary and congested conditions to which I have referred. I was glad the hon. Member for East Renfrew (Mr. Johnstone) pointed out that the local authorities want more power than they possess at present. The present proceedings are cumbersome; they are expensive, and they cause delay. Plans have to be gone over; every little petty dispute has to be submitted to the Board of Health; and instead of getting on with the houses which are so greatly required considerable delay takes place. My purpose in rising was especially to refer to the area from which I come. That area is only a sample of the districts of industrial Scotland. I did not rise to blame the Government. I have spoken as I have because, now that the national conscience has been awakened in favour of improved housing, it is from our places in this House that we shall be able to keep that conscience alive, until we see springing up, throughout the length and breadth of Great Britain, that class of house which at present forms just a little patch here and there of the improved housing. I believe that if that can be done—not by a miracle, but by pushing this matter on constantly and by continually keeping this high ideal before our people and ourselves—then we shall soon get rid of the bad insanitary conditions which have existed for so long.

Mr. TAYLOR: I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. John Robertson) with a great deal of interest. He will remember that he and I spoke on the question of housing very much in the same strain many times long before the War. The condition of Lanark is not a new one. The miners' houses in 1914 were bad, and the lapse of time has made them worse. The hon. Member for Both-well, before he became a Member of this
House—I had done so also—raised his voice in favour of better housing in Scotland. We looked forward to the time when the Report of the Royal Commission would be submitted to the House. Whenever we brought forward any proposals for better housing in Scotland, with Government assistance, we were met with the reply, "Wait until the Royal Commission's Report is submitted, and then we will consider it." I think that Report was submitted in 1916. It revealed a condition of things in Scotland that even Scotsmen had never half realised until that time. It is a full Report, and it contains information about the condition of the towns in Scotland which show that some of them are very much worse than others.
In the matter of this Report we are much further advanced than England. England has no such Report and we do not know the condition of her various towns and cities. I think Scotsmen in this House have made a mistake in saying that the conditions in Scotland are very much worse than in England. When England has had such an exhaustive report on her housing conditions, then—I speak from my own observation—I am certain that Scotland will prove to be very much better—however bad her conditions are—compared with those in London and many other English towns. In Scotland we have a different system of building than in England; we have not built only for a time, we have built for posterity. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) spoke about the conditions in Edinburgh, and I recognised that he did not say as much as he might have done. Many of the houses in Edinburgh were built hundreds of years ago. They are about 11 storeys high, and some of them have no outlet at all. I went with the medical officer of Edinburgh on a visit of inspection, and I saw a bedroom in which a boy who was suffering from tuberculosis was lying. The distance from the window to the wall on the opposite side was no greater than about three feet. That condition of things, of course, is very prevalent in the Cowgate, the Canongate, and the High Street. It has long been the opinion of those in authority that a big clearance of some of those slum areas is required. It would have been done long before this but for the reason that the City cannot afford it.
The same thing exists in connection with the City of Glasgow. Glasgow has made very great clearances about the Salt-market and some of the other places, under a city improvement scheme. It has tackled the problem and has taken the burden on its own shoulders. There are still many areas in Glasgow which require to be cleared. Glasgow, with the large expenditure of the past and the burden still upon it, cannot go further in clearing slum areas without some assistance. I welcome the promise, even of £30,000 a year, for the clearance of slum areas. I welcome also the statement of the Secretary for Scotland that Glasgow has formulated a clearance and housing scheme to cost £350,000, with the assistance of the small contribution that it will get from the Government. I would never ask the Government to pay the whole cost of clearance or housing schemes. That would take responsibility from the local authority. The burden ought to be borne partly by the local authority and partly by the State. Those who have complained that the Coalition Government have not fulfilled their promises would do well to cast their minds back to the period before the Coalition came into power and before they initiated their housing scheme.
The first Housing Bill was introduced about 1893. That gave local authorities power to go on with housing schemes, and they had to repay the cost of building and of land in 30 years. No Government assistance was given, and the burden fell on the local authorities. If local authorities did not tackle the housing question at that time it was because they could not afford it. The next Act amended that scheme and gave local authorities an extension of time for the repayment of loans on houses to 60 years and on land to 80 years. Again there was no Government assistance, and the local authorities had to bear the burden. If the War had not intervened, local authorities, with that extended time allowed for repayment, were prepared to go on with their large housing schemes. But the War intervened and upset all arrangements. That is what I would ask some hon. Members on the other side to remember. I am sorry that the Government housing scheme has broken down. In my town of Clydebank I looked forward to a great housing scheme. For a large number of years we have had a population of nearly 20,000 who travel
between Clydebank and Glasgow and the Vale of Leven. They could not find houses in Clydebank, and they travelled to Glasgow, the Vale of Leven, and other places to get houses. Before 1914 the local authority was prepared to go on with a housing scheme. But the War prevented that being done. The local authority looked then to the Government to help them in the provision of houses. They have done so, so far, but I regret that the number of houses sanctioned is not up to expectations. Another part of my constituency is the borough of Dumbarton. The Commission Report made out a very bad case against Dumbarton. It is a very old town, and many of the houses, like those at Edinburgh, date back 100 or 200 years, and are not in a state of sanitary repair or, in many cases, fit for habitation. Dumbarton ought to have had a larger number of houses than it got. We did get some. But if the slums are to be removed and houses put up in their place, the burden to be borne ought to have more consideration from the Scottish Board of Health than it has received in the past, although I admit that, so far as Sir George McCrae is concerned, he gave Dumbarton a share of the surplus that was at his disposal.
In regard to cost, there is no doubt that the large number of schemes which were embarked on all over the country increased the cost of houses very much. There was competition between builders for the supply of houses in the various area, and an increased demand for materials. Wages, too, went up. The difficulty was augmented largely by the Building Material Supply Committee of the Government. In this House I called the attention of the late Minister of Health to the injustice of Scotland having to depend for building material on the Building Material Supplies Committee in England. It raised the cost of the building material supplied to Scotland. The building scheme of the Government in Scotland was not the system of building to which we have been accustomed in Scotland. We have been accustomed to building with stone, but all the new houses had to be built of brick and roughcast. Altogether, the scheme was different, and in cases where the material had to be brought from England and the cost of transit was as much as the cost of the material itself, the necessary expenditure rose. Bricks rose in price
to over £5 10s. a thousand, a figure which was out of all proportion to the previous cost. Wages rose from something like 10½d. an hour in 1914 to 2s. 3d. and 2s. 6d. an hour. All these things largely increased the cost of building. I am sorry to say that, in spite of the increased wage, the men did not give the same return. It did not matter what you said to them, for they knew that all they had to do was to get a job elsewhere. That was not good either for the masters or the men. I am glad to say that the trouble is being remedied, and that the men now are realising that in their own interests they should give a better day's work for a better day's wage. The cost of bricks has been reduced from 110s. per thousand to something like 50s. per thousand, and wages in the building trade have gone down by Is. an hour. That has largely reduced the cost of building, and I am sorry that the Government have not seized the opportunity, now that there is a chance of better production at a cheaper cost, of going on with a further supply of houses. Their idea may be that the cost is going to be reduced still further, but I do not think there can be much hope of that. I should be sorry to see wages coming down any lower than they are at the present time. A man requires all the pay he has just now to keep himself in comfort, and I do not think there is much hope of any considerable reduction of wages in the future. I hope there will be a reduction in building materials. If the statements made by some of my hon. Friends on the other side of the House—which, to a certain extent, I can substantiate—are correct, namely, that building materials have in many cases been controlled by rings, there is hope that these rings will be broken by the competition to get orders. Before this, it did not matter what the price was, the supplies had to be given, and the rings could make any prices they liked. I hope the Government will look ahead now, and go on with an extended housing scheme at the reduced cost. I do not think the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) was exactly fair to the Government. He made the statement that the houses completed numbered 5,000. I took him to mean that only 5,000 houses had been completed in Scotland up to the present time, but that is not the case. The num-
ber of houses completed up to the present time is 11,000, and others are in course of completion. I am sure the hon. Member for East Edinburgh had no intention of misstating the facts, but that was the impression which he conveyed to me. He may have meant that 5,000 was the number completed up to the end of last year, and that would be correct. But he should have brought his statement up to date, and showed what the Government had actually done up to the present time. We should be enabled to judge the performances of the Government on the actual facts. I am not going to vote for the Amendment because, with all the mistakes which the Government have made, they have done much better than any Government which preceded them, and the other Governments could have carried out these brilliant schemes, under much more favourable conditions, with regard to the National Debt, with regard to the industry, and with regard to the money which they had at their command.

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: We always listen with very great respect to the hon. Member, who has just spoken, when he deals with matters of housing, or, indeed, any question connected with local government in Scotland. The Committee has listened to his speech to-night with the greatest interest. I, personally, listened with particular interest to that portion of it which dealt with the history of housing in Scotland. The hon. Member described how before the War the Government which then existed did nothing to assist housing in Scotland. Then came the time after the War, when the Coalition Government came into power, and proceeded to take such steps as they believed were adequate to assist housing in our country. So soon as the housing schemes were adumbrated in this House, I took exception to them on the ground that they were conceived in the spirit of Socialism, and took no account whatsoever of private enterprise. They handed over entirely to the local authorities the work of producing the very large number of houses required in Scotland.
We have heard from the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) numerous figures, into which I do not wish to enter, but I may remind the Committee that the number of houses which the Royal Commission considered neces-
sary to house the people of Scotland was something like 250,000. I would also remind the Committee of the figure of 121,000 houses at which the local authorities in Scotland in 1919 fixed the requirement. I further remind the Committee once more of the figure of 21,000 which is the final figure those local authorities have produced. I listened with amazement to the speech of the hon. Member for Renfrew (Mr. Johnstone) when he urged the Government this evening that in future schemes for housing they should take into account not only the local authorities, but private enterprise. I remember the same hon. Member disclaiming in favour of the local authorities and against private enterprise having anything to do with the creation of houses in Scotland. Those of us who urged the Government not to leave out private enterprise and who did so from the first moment when they produced their scheme, are glad that at last salvation has been found by hon. Members like the hon. Member for Renfrew. We hope that the salvation may spread to the minds of other hon. Members who still keep on urging the Government to confine their efforts to Socialistic and municipal enterprise. I represent a constituency which contains some of the worst slums in Glasgow.

Mr. MYERS: Private enterprise.

Mr. G. MURRAY;: I agree that private enterprise has had a great deal to do with the creation of slums, but the day has come when the Government and the people of this country must realise that we have to take these questions in hand and sweep away these slums. I ask hon. Members on the Labour Benches whether it is not better to treat the whole question from a practical point of view, from the point of view of the conditions which exist and will continue to exist, than to treat it merely from the point of view of theory. Is it not better to meet it in a practical way than to meet it from the point of view of the policy which has been pursued by the Government up to the present and has produced 21,000 houses out of a requirement of 121,000 houses? I know very well that economy must govern the position to-day, but Scotland must be better housed, and I feel quite sure that every reasonable and every practical proposal that may be brought forward in this House to meet the awful conditions which
exist, especially in some of the slum areas in the great cities in Scotland, will receive favourable consideration. I hope that, notwithstanding the financial conditions which prevail to-day, the Secretary for Scotland and the President of the Board of Health in Scotland will not relax their efforts or their investigations into schemes and possibilities of improving the housing in Scotland.

Mr. R. McLAREN: The question of housing has been an urgent one for many years, A mistake was made in 1909, we all admit, and from that year on till October, 1918, very few houses indeed have been erected in the country. The result, to my own knowledge, was that from 1909, especially in some parts of Scotland, the quarry industry, because houses were not being built, got into a very bad state, and until 1918 very few quarries were working. I am sorry the right hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. J. Robertson) has left his place, because I wished to call attention to one or two of his remarks this evening on this subject. He spoke of some houses in Lanarkshire—I believe in my own district —that had been condemned as unfit for habitation, but which were still occupied owing to the housing scarcity. I expected him to say that these houses were owned by colliery owners of the district, but if he were here I would tell him that these houses are owned by a private party, who still insists on the people living in them. He also stated that in some parts of Lanarkshire, for every house that is built there are seven applications, but he forgot to say that probably more than half of the applications are from parties who are already in houses and want bigger houses than they at present possess. He also failed to say that many of the men to-day who are in the houses built by the corporations and the county councils will very likely have to leave them very soon because they are utterly unwilling to pay the present high rents, as work has become very scarce, and many of them are out of employment.
10.0 P.M.
One would think, from the remarks of my right hon. Friend, that the only places in Scotland where there was overcrowding were his district and my district, but it is a very common thing in Scotland, and there is far too much overcrowding, and we can only hope that sufficient houses will be built in course
of time to do away with this very serious state of affairs. I agree with his remarks that the local authorities, in connection with housing schemes, are far too much hampered. In my own town, before houses could be started at all, I know, for a fact, that the men who had charge had to run to and from Edinburgh with the plans, and so forth, and that months elapsed before any start could be made with the building. If anything could be done whereby local authorities could be given more power and be less under the control of the Board of Health in the matter of housing, I think it would be a good thing.
I am one of those who supported the Government heartily when they brought in the modification of their housing scheme, and I will tell the Committee why. In that housing scheme we found that the prices for houses were very high indeed. Material was high, wages were high, and there was no prospect whatever of the houses becoming any cheaper, and in my own district houses that could normally be built with stone for a few hundred pounds cost over £1,000 to build. From the day on which the scheme was modified the prices began to come down, not only of the material, but of the wages of the men, and to-day we find that houses are very much cheaper than they were. We see constantly in the newspapers that people are talking about cheap houses, but when we come to get specifications in from the builders we find that they are not just as cheap as some people imagine, nor, I fear, will they be cheap for some time to come. All the same, it is a fact that at the present moment houses ought to be very much cheaper than they are, because material has come down in price. Another good result has ensued from the cheapening of houses. We in Scotland were entirely opposed to having the models given to us on the system of the English houses. We have a system of our own in Scotland, and we build good, substantial houses. We do not believe altogether in brick houses, and during the time the controversy was on I took the matter up very seriously with the Board of Health on the question of building houses with stone, where it was impossible to get brick. I am glad to say that when it was brought to the
notice of the Board of Health that in some parts of Scotland, where the price of brick was so very high and where they could get cheaper material in the district by using sandstone or whinstone for building houses, besides giving employment to a number of men locally, the Board at once acquiesced, and we had many houses built with stone. The people there to-day, I am sure, are very glad that they did not get the houses built with brick.
The question has been raised in my own district as to how long these houses will last, and it is a fact, borne out by the Board of Health themselves, that the houses to-day, both those built and those that will be built, will cost Scotland £50 a year for 60 years. I am bound to say that if houses deteriorate at the rate they have since they were built, there will be no houses there 60 years hence. One good result will be, that by having a modification of the scheme, there will be a chance for private enterprise, and I am quite sure the hon. Member for the St. Rollox division (Mr. G. Murray) will be glad of that. I entirely agree that it is a great mistake to municipalise anything we ought to do for ourselves in the way of private enterprise. The whole success of this country has been to leave things to be done by private enterprise, and seeing that it is now left for people to build their own houses, because they cannot get them built under the Government scheme, many builders will construct private houses, which will be built of good substantial stone, which we most require in Scotland. The climate of Scotland is entirely different from that of England, and we require a good stone house with a good stone wall to keep ourselves warm in winter time. Brick houses cannot very well do that, and I am told by people who live in these houses in my own district, which is very high and cold, that they could scarcely keep themselves warm with fires on a winter night.
I think the Government would be well advised if they could give us some idea, now that costs have come down, as to what the price for building houses is likely to be within the next few months. I have heard that it is in contemplation that the houses already built shall be sold for half-price. I can assure the Committee that, so far as the houses in my own district and those about me are con-
cerned, I would not give £500 to £600 each for them. They are not worth above £300 to-day, although they cost £l,100. In view of the fact that it is going to cost £50 a year for 60 years before the money is cleared off, I suggest to the Government that they ought to make a present of these houses to anyone who will take them, provided that they will take over the burdens and pay all the taxation, including the feu duties. I think that by and by we shall have to face the loss, and it would not be a very bad plan if that were done.
There can be no doubt that sometimes local authorities, because they were so anxious to get houses built, did not consider the schemes at all well. I have brought a case before the Board of Health. In the County of Lanark, about five miles from where I live, a scheme was drawn up by the county council to build 20 houses. I took occasion to call the attention of the Board of Health to the fact that in that district the mining was almost exhausted. In spite of my representation, the county council went on with the scheme, and the building of the houses, I believe, is completed. What I said has turned out to be quite true. All the collieries in that district have been stopped, and I believe that out of the 20 houses, seven only are occupied, and those by men who otherwise would scarcely have got them, and the suggestion has been that they should be let to men who own motor cars in the town five miles away, and who could motor in and out. I think it is a good thing to have houses built where they are required, but I do not see why any local authority should build houses where they should know, by making inquiries, that the houses would not be required. The Lanark County Council have built these houses in spite of the protestations, not only of myself, but of others in the district. I trust the Board of Health will take up a matter such as that, make full inquiry, and satisfy themselves on the best evidence they can get as to whether houses to be built are actually required, because it will save the money of the ratepayers, and, at the same time, do a good turn to the Government who supply money, and things will be. better in the future.
I do not intend to vote for the Amendment. but shall support the Government
in this respect. While I recognise that we want more houses for the people, I think that, on the whole, with a little patience and leaving it to private enterprise, in some way things will, by and by, right themselves. It is quite true the slum question is a very serious question, and must be tackled, but the question I put again is, whether or not it is a wise thing to force matters? Is it not far better, under the circumstances, to ca' canny, as the saying is, in the hope that something may be done as soon as possible, seeing that things are righting themselves in the matter of price? The hon. Member for St. Rollox referred to the Glasgow municipal enterprise in bricks. I should be glad to hear what is being done by the municipal people with their brickworks. Seeing that bricks are so cheap, I wonder whether it is wise on the part of these people to purchase brickworks to build houses when it can be done, I think, very much more cheaply by private enterprise.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I propose to confine myself briefly to one point, with perhaps some reference to what was said by my hon. Friend on this side. The largest Scottish municipalities are very keenly interested in this departure of policy on the part of the Government in slum clearances. As I understand the proposition, we shall have in future an annual sum of £200,000 set aside, in the case of England and £30,000 in the case of Scotland, for application to this scheme. In the case of Scotland, there are, I think, one or two difficulties which the Government itself would probably desire to clear up to-night. When this matter was last discussed in the House it was suggested and, I think, not disputed on the other side, that the limit of liability on the part of Scottish ratepayers in this matter is the product of a rate of four-fifths of a penny in the £, and that if any larger contribution was to be expected from the ratepayers in the future, that could only be obtained under the Clause in the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which gives the Scottish Board of Health this power. If that be the situation, and if this other legislation is not to be taken until the Autumn Session, it is quite clear that there will be at least some delay before there can be expected from Scottish ratepayers, as a contribution to the clearance of these slum areas. anything in excess of the pro-
duct of a rate of four-fifths of a penny in the £, and I want to ask the Government to-night, before we leave this problem of Scottish housing, whether anything can be done, under existing legislation, to hasten the policy on which they themselves have embarked? I think it is true to say that many of the Scottish municipalities are in some doubt still regarding this departure, because, of course, they are familiar with the recent theory that the limit of their liability would be the product of a rate of four-fifths of a penny in the £. They foresee the larger call, but I am inclined to agree that, at the moment, this may prove to be a policy of economy. I think, in the time of falling rates to which we look forward in Scotland, it would be very sound investment for municipalities to do more in the way of slum clearances than in the past. It comes to this, that if they do not so invest their money, or raise a rate for that purpose, they are really raising the rates in another direction, for the public health assessment will be larger in having to deal with the ill-health to which these congested district conditions give rise.
The only other point about which I am going to ask some information from the Government was really raised in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Rollox (Mr. G. Murray), when he denounced the municipal enterprise referred to in the Annual Report of the Scottish Board of Health. The Board, dealing with housing conditions, expressed the hope that at the earliest possible moment we shall be able to get back to private enterprise in the provision of houses in Scotland. In the time at my disposal I dare not start arguing the question as between public enterprise and private enterprise; it is much too large a question. I do, however, beg hon. Members from all parts of Scotland to have regard to the proportions of this problem, as we now see it. Let us frankly ask ourselves whether, if private enterprise enters even to a much larger extent than any of us have reason to believe it will enter at the present time, we can get rid of a very large amount of public enterprise in this matter.
The actual position here, as we were reminded by the Secretary for Scotland, is that the Royal Commission recommended 236,000 houses for Scotland. That Commission went on to say that
130,000 of that total number were urgently required. I do not agree that the standard laid down by the Royal Commission was, on the whole, extravagant or even a very high standard. By many practical people in Scottish housing it was regarded as a moderate and a reasonable standard; but at all events they said that 130,000 houses were urgently required. I agree entirely that we required to revise the general policy in recent years. The Government set out in an effort to build houses when prices for everything were very high, and unfortunately, as many of us regard it, they did not take steps so to regulate prices or so to restrict the powers of the rings and trusts which supplied Scottish building material as would have given the solution of the housing problem in Scotland a fair chance. Whatever may have happened in that respect, the policy is now altered, and under the schemes which have so far been approved we stand to get in the aggregate, some day in the future, about 28,000 houses—I have stated, I think, the case accurately— against the 130,000 "urgent" houses of the 236,000 which the Royal Commission regarded as required.
The idea or suggestion in the Annual Report of the Scottish Board of Health was that private enterprise would enter the field. I am entitled to claim—if I may be forgiven this remark -some knowledge of the Scottish building trade, directly and indirectly, over a fair period of years. There are really two classes of people in the Scottish building industry. There are the large contractors, who probably will be busily engaged for years on public and other contracts of a large and important character, and there are the smaller builders who were to a large extent in the past the people who provided house property in Scotland. I do not think, on the whole, that the large contractors are going to look to the provision of house property as an investment, although, of course, they might undertake the provision of some of it on terms of contracts which might be arranged between them and any other party who entered the field. We shall thus have in Scotland to rely upon the smaller builders. What is the attitude of the smaller builders in Scotland to this problem? The small builder knows perfectly well that because of the complete interruption of a large part of his work during the War period he will
be busily engaged in future on repair work and jobbing work and to some extent on luxury enterprises to which a good deal of attention has been devoted in recent years. I have discussed this problem with many small builders, and a very large number of them say that they are compelled to direct their activity to that repair work and minor luxury work, and certainly not to the provision of house property as a speculation upon which they hope to get anything resembling a fair return. Even if we make a large deduction from what the small builders say, it is quite clear that only a limited amount of the house property urgently required in Scotland will be forthcoming from that source, and therefore we must have a considerable amount of enterprise on the part of local authorities and on the part of the State itself. Accordingly it is idle to argue the question of public or private enterprise at the present stage.
For myself, I say, if private enterprise can enter the field, good and well, but, failing that, in the interests of the urgent provision of Scottish housing we shall have to rely more on the municipalities and public effort. I want to know, in the first place, is there a limit to the liability of the Scottish ratepayers for these slum clearance schemes; and, in the second place, I want to know what is the attitude of the Government towards that passage in the Annual Report of the Scottish Board of Health dealing with the hope of a return to private enterprise with regard to housing in Scotland.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: There are many things I should like to refer to, but some of them have already been touched upon, and no doubt the President of the Scottish Board of Health will answer the questions which have been put. We should be interested to know whether, in view of the fall in cost, the suspension of the Government's housing scheme will be terminated. When the housing policy for Scotland was altered it was stated that it was not an abandonment of the policy, but a suspension. Conditions have now changed, the need of houses is nearly as great, but prices are much lower, and it would be interesting to know whether the Government contemplate any resumption on a large scale of their earlier plans relating to housing.
My second question is, would the Government spokesman tell us how far the private builder has fulfilled the hopes entertained, and how far he has filled the gaps left owing to the suspension of the Government's original plan? The sum of £30,000 has been put aside to assist in clearing Scottish slum areas, but that is quite inadequate, and it is almost useless expenditure until you have built houses for the people who will be dispossessed in the slums. My final question is this. We know from answers given by the Prime Minister that a Committee is to be set up to deal with the position created by the Rent Restrictions Act. I cannot now make any suggestions for the amendment of that Act, but this is a question which interests my constituents very much, and I should be very grateful if the Chairman of the Scottish Board of Health could tell us whether there is to be a Scottish branch of that Committee, or is Scotland to be covered by the English Committee. I should also like to know when they are likely to report and will their Report be published? These are matters which greatly interest householders in Scotland, and I shall be glad if I can receive answers from the Government on these points.

Sir A. SPROT: I should like to begin by making a small suggestion in the direction of economy. We have here three books, I am not sure this is relevant to the Debate, but we are assembled here as Scottish Members, and perhaps the Secretary for Scotland will pass my suggestion on to the Stationery Office or to any other Department to which it may be proper. When we are dealing with Scottish Votes, why should we not have them all in one book instead of having to consult three books'? That is a very modest suggestion. I am sorry I missed some of the previous speeches with regard to miners' houses. I am to some extent interested in Lanarkshire, and I venture to say there is nothing to be said against the housing conditions that prevail there.

Mr. ROBERTSON: In what part?

Sir A. SPROT: In the Lower Ward. I quite agree that in other parts of the county things are not so satisfactory.

Mr. ROBERTSON: To what part is the hon. and gallant Member referring?

Sir A. SPROT: To the Lower Ward. It is possible to have good miners' houses,
and if the hon. Gentleman will come into Fife I will show him some examples. On the Wemyss Estate the problem has been successfully studied and they have a very excellent class of miners' houses.

Mr. ROBERTSON: I will go to Lanarkshire first and then to Fife.

Sir A. SPROT: I did not intend to say anything to provoke discussion on the part of the hon. Member. I am quite at one with him in the desire to see the houses for miners as good as they are for other people. We landowners do provide houses for the labourers on our estates, and if that were the rule, all those interested in mining would also provide suitable houses for the people who have to work in the mines. The same should be the case with other trades and enterprises. If the owners of all such concerns were compelled to provide houses for the workers in the same way as the ordinary country landowner has to provide for his ploughman, then we should arrive at some solution of the housing problem. That leads me to this point. It was noted in the discussions which we had on the Scottish Housing Bill that little or nothing was going to be done for housing in the country districts. That has proved to be the case. As hon. Members will be aware, in Fife there are a good many burghs—some 28 or 29—and some of them are in my constituency. In these burghs there are housing schemes, but not one single house has been provided under the Housing Act in the landward part of my constituency, and that notwithstanding the fact that we who live in the landward part have to contribute, through the Income Tax and other taxes, to the expense of these housing schemes. That is a point which I think ought to be considered.
When I came in, I heard an hon. Member discoursing on the subject of bricks, and he stated, very truly, that under the housing scheme the bricks had to be provided by a commission, the result being that the bricks were sent up to Scotland from England. I think that was entirely wrong. I have watched the housing schemes progressing in my neighbourhood. Whenever I drive to the railway station I pass a housing scheme, and I could not help noticing the very slow manner in which the building progressed. On one
occasion I asked the reason, and was told that the houses were being built of concrete, but that the delay arose from there not being any bricks available—not for outside purposes, but for partitions. There was a brickworks within three miles of that place, but, I presume, the bricks had to be obtained through some bureaucratic arrangement from England, and therefore the delay was occasioned. I should like to ask, as a definite question to the Secretary for Scotland, or whoever is going to reply on this matter, what is the actual position as regards the houses which have not been commenced or sanctioned at the present time? Are they going to be proceeded with under these housing schemes or are they not? I have some knowledge of a locality in which negotiations are still going on for the purchase of land for a housing scheme in Scotland, although I understood that, owing to the pressure of financial conditions in our country, the housing schemes had been brought to an end. I should like to be told what is the actual position with regard to the balance of those houses which have not been sanctioned or have not been commenced at the present time. Is the scheme to go on or is it not to go on?
I turn from that to the recommendations of the Geddes Report. The recommendation with regard to housing was perfectly plain. It was that you must sell the houses as soon as you possibly can, and the information given in the Geddes Report was to the effect that the cost of houses built under the housing scheme was £1,100 per house. That corresponds exactly with certain of the houses which were erected in my own constituency, and that figure is correct. Then the Report says that the loan charges per annum are £75. That is the sum which has to be paid for the loan of the money with which these houses were built. Towards this the net rents provide £16, leaving a deficiency of £59, and from that may be deducted £4, which is the local contribution at four-fifths of a penny in the pound. That leaves the taxpayer to pay £55 per annum for each of the houses which have been erected. All I have to say is that the sooner those houses are sold the better. Many of them are erected in watering places like St. Andrews, Anstruther, and other places all round the coast. Those houses would sell very well, and might let, pos-
sibly, for a great deal more than the estimated rent which they produce at the present time. But the longer they remain in the possession of the local authority, the more they are going to cost. A new house does not cost very much to repair. When it has been in existence for a year or two slates come off and water pipes and drainage require repair and one thing and another, and dampness appears here and there; and these houses are going to cost a great deal more to the community as time goes on. The best thing you can do is to sell them at once, as recommended by the Geddes Committee. Cut your loss. Sell them for what they will fetch, and do not compete with the ordinary builder in the future. Allow private enterprise to have its full scope, and then we shall soon get back as far as we are able to a proper supply of houses.

Mr. PRATT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): We have had a most interesting discussion on this very great question of housing, and I think one has felt running through the whole of it how serious the difficulties are if we are to carry through to a successful conclusion the earlier hopes of the Government in this matter. The questions which have been put to me are so numerous and the time left at my disposal is so short, that I had better take them right away, giving what replies I can, and if I have a few moments to spare, I can make a few observations myself before I sit down. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Wallace) put a question as to the programme of the Board of Health. I cannot add anything to what the President has already said. I can only remind my hon Friend that the 28,000 houses, which are in various stages of construction and preparation, will not be completed at least until the end of next year, and meantime the Board are seeking to get into immediate touch with the local authorities in regard to slum clearances, which the grant of £30,000 enables them to do. The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) put a question on the point whether our activities in this respect would be necessarily held up until a certain Measure to which he referred had been passed. I am glad to reassure him that we can be getting on with this work. There is nothing to prevent us going for-
ward and making our arrangements with the local authorities to carry on this work of slum clearance. If the Bill becomes law it will certainly make the path easier, but we are not held up until that Measure becomes law. The hon. Member for Dunfermline has made a complaint as to the proceedings of the Building Supply Depot at Stornoway. I cannot give him very much information on this point because it does not arise on this Vote. It should have been raised on the Vote we were discussing earlier in the day. I cannot doubt that there is some misunderstanding in the matter, or he has been misinformed.

Mr. WALLACE: The Secretary for Scotland is in his place, and I am sure that if he refers to his officials he will find that he has some information of a very important character which he can give to the Committee.

Mr. PRATT: My right hon. Friend may be able to deal with the matter, but I am sorry that I am not in a position to make any reference to it. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) put a series of questions to me. He asked me what, approximately, are the prices of houses to-day as compared with the prices two years ago. The three-apartment house in 1920–21 cost, approximately, £1,000 on the average. During the present year that sum has been reduced to £600, a reduction of 40 per cent. Quite recently, within the last week or two, the Board have approved plans for this type of house, and the price has been reduced to £487. The next question was as to the number of men employed on house-building operations at the present time. The number is, approximately, 11,000. The next question was as to the number of men in the building trade in Scotland who are unemployed. A statement which I have in my possession gives the list of unemployed building trade operatives as 8,967. I notice that in this list the number of plasterers unemployed is 66. That means that there is very little unemployment among the plasterers. Other work is often held up and other men unemployed through the shortage of plasterers. Much of this labour is immobile. Another question was as to the facilities now given to local authorities for loans at easy rates. These authorities can go to the Public Works Loans Board and can obtain loans at the present time at 5½
per cent., including sinking fund and ordinary loans at 5 per cent. interest.
Several hon. Members have asked, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew (Mr. Johnstone), for greater freedom for local authorities in the future. It has been generally agreed tonight that the Government and the municipalities will have to bear part of this burden, despite what was said by the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. G. Murray) in favour of private enterprise. I believe everything should be done to encourage private enterprise, but those of us who are acquainted with housing conditions in Scotland, and looking at the matter with much experience behind us, cannot doubt that both the local authorities and the State will still have some part to play in the future. One other thing was made quite clear, during the discussion, that while the State and the local authorities will still have some considerable part to play, the arrangements will have to be very different from the schemes under which we have been working during the last few years. There will be a general consensus of opinion that if greater freedom is to be given to local authorities, as is desired, they will in future have to bear a larger part of the burden. In regard to the proposition that we have been discussing to-day as to the slum clearances—and that includes the re-housing of those who are dispossessed—the Committee will be glad to learn that the Board of Health will give a much freer hand to the local authorities than has been the case under the schemes of the last two years.
The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) gave some figures which were rather out of date. He said that the result of two years' work was only the building of some 5,000 houses. He took, I think, to the end of last year. If he were present now he would desire that the correct figures to date should be stated. There is, including local authority houses and houses built by public utility societies, and the private subsidy houses, a total up to the end of June of 11,776 of these houses which were occupied. In addition there were 300 for occupancy at the end of June. So there were actually more than 12,000 houses either occupied or immediately to be occupied. There are some 9,000 others in various stages of construction. and there are still arrange-
ments to be made for building between 6,000 and 7,000 houses.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) made a strong point in regard to the Rent Restrictions Act and he inquired as to the Committee which is shortly to be set up to inquire into the present position of the Act. I cannot give my hon. and gallant Friend the terms of reference but I can assure him that on that Committee there will be two Scottish representatives.

Captain BENN: Out of how many?

Mr. PRATT: I understand that the Committee is not yet complete, and the number is not yet fixed, but my right hon. Friend assures me that there will be a complete representation of all Scottish interests and the Scottish point of view in this matter.

Captain BENN: Can the hon. Gentleman give me any idea as to when their labours will be completed and their report presented?

Mr. PRATT: No, but I think I can assure the hon. Member that the proceedings will go forward with all expedition. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Fife (Sir A. Sprot) asked me whether certain other houses were to be proceeded with. If they come within the total of the 28,000, they will be proceeded with, but the Government will not go any further in the meantime, and I am informed that there are still very few of the houses that are to be built that do come within the limit; but up to the limit of the 28,000, including the private subsidy, we will go forward.

Mr. J. ROBERTSON: How will the £30,000 be applied between the different slum districts and insanitary areas?

Mr. PRATT: If the hon. Gentleman had been present when the Secretary for Scotland was speaking, he would have heard him refer to a scheme already under consideration in Glasgow. Other schemes are being considered in Edinburgh and Dundee. I shall be pleased to give the hon. Member the details in regard to these as they proceed.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I think my hon. Friend behind me desires to find out whether any portion of this money will be applied in other than urban areas in Scotland. Will it be applicable to the rural areas, in which, unfortunately,
there are slums no less than in the great cities?

Mr. PRATT: I am not quite sure. What we have to do is to take the areas which are the worst, the industrial and mining areas, and use there the funds which are at our disposal.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS IV.

PUBLIC EDUCATION, SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £3,313,314, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Public Education in Scotland, and for Science and Art in Scotland, including a Grant-in-Aid."—[NOTE: £3,400,000 has been voted on account.]

Captain W. BENN: I did not anticipate that this Vote would come on quite so soon. There is a question which I have asked the Secretary for Scotland and which I wish to bring to his notice on this occasion, but if it does not arise on this Vote perhaps he will tell me, and I will resume my seat. Industrial schools, which have, in addition to pupils remitted to them by Order of the Court, a number of voluntary cases, that is to say, pupils sent there voluntarily by their parents—I have a case in my mind now—cannot make their accounts balance because of the very heavy numbers, the reduction of subscriptions, and so on. They are unable to get any increase in the grants—the Secretary for Scotland may perhaps remember the case—from his Department, yet they argue that they are, in fact, providing day by day education for these voluntary pupils which otherwise would have to be provided by the public authorities, and therefore they are doing public work and should receive some form of money indemnity from the Government for that purpose. There is a very hard case, of which the Secretary for Scotland is aware, and which I have referred to him, and there are others, no doubt, in the same class. If the right hon. Gentleman could give a little explanation—perhaps he has a complete answer—as a good deal of interest has been excited in this question, no doubt many people will be glad to hear his reply.

Mr. MUNRO: With regard to my hon. and gallant Friend's question, I shall be
glad if he will allow me to write to him on the subject. I did not know he was going to raise it and, frankly, without notice, I am not able to deal with it.
Perhaps, for five minutes, I may be allowed to say a word or two about the education authorities in Scotland, unless any hon. Member desires to speak. The postponement of the developments which were anticipated in 1918, which is due, to some considerable extent, to the financial stringency which exists, while undoubtedly a matter of regret from the idealistic point of view, is not without its compensation. It has given the authorities time to consider deliberately the task which lies before them, and at the same time it has left their hands free to cope with the more immediate and pressing problem of re-organising the forces already at their disposal. It has been no light matter to co-ordinate within the new areas the many different educational activities which were previously controlled by a large numebr of smaller units of managers. The authorities assumed office in circumstances of exceptional difficulty. The War left behind it a very heavy legacy. Repairs which, in normal circumstances, would have been carried out as a matter of routine had to be left undone. All sorts of makeshift arrangements had to be tried in regard to staffing, and no steps had been taken for the usual extension of school accommodation. In regard to the last of these, it is worth pointing out that Nature has itself provided an alleviation. The fall in the birth-rate, which was the inevitable consequence of the prolongation of hostilities, has brought about such a retardation in the growth of the school population that it would be a year or two before the demand for places is as clamant as it was in the last pre-War years or in the earlier years of the War itself. On the other hand, the instability of prices, wages and the like have added greatly to the responsibility of administration. Education authorities are not the only bodies which have had to face this difficulty. It has intruded itself into every sphere of public life and in many spheres of private life. It is right to remember that the education authorities were particularly hard hit because the special strain to which we have been subjected fell upon them at the very moment when they were
struggling to find their feet. That fact is often lost sight of by those who criticise them.
Had things gone as we all hoped and wished, very substantial relief might have been anticipated when the peculiar difficulties attendant upon the transition stage had been surmounted. Unfortunately, however, these difficulties have been replaced by others, no less serious, but deriving from a quite different set of causes. The unprecedented depression in trade, with its almost mechanical reaction upon national and local finance, has given ground for the gravest anxiety. I have been watching the situation very carefully, and I am glad to be able to say that there is every indication that education authorities as a whole are coping with their difficult task in a very satisfactory fashion. The return of the ascertained expenditure of authorities for the year just ended and their estimated expenditure for the year that has now begun are coming in daily, and are being examined by the Department. I am not in a position to set out complete figures, but I can safely say that, so far as the examination has proceeded, the results are most encouraging. They show clearly that the authorities are making real headway in the direction of securing economies, without seriously curtailing the existing provision of education. In most cases the returns show that during last year savings on the Estimates were effected, and that further reduction of expenditure will be made in the current year. As a result, in the great majority of areas, there will be no increase of rates, and to many there will be a more or less substantial reduction. That there should be a further reduction this year, in spite of the heavy cut in the Imperial grant, will be a matter of congratulation to all of us who realise how big the problem has become. It is plain
that the authorities who are faced with the problem have been doing their best to set their houses in order, and most of them have carried over—

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (SUPERANNUATION) [ANNUITIES].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order 71 A.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That it is expedient for the purpose of any Act of the present Session providing for the payment of contributions towards the cost of benefits under the scheme framed and approved in terms of the Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Act, 1919, and for matters incidental thereto, and for the payment from the Consolidated Fund of deferred annuities in respect of contributions under the Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898, to authorise the charge on the Consolidated Fund and the growing produce thereof of any deferred annuities payable in respect of Scottish contributions to the deferred annuity fund under the Eelementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898."—[King's Recommendation signified.]—[Sir. John Baird.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.